data book › api › file_data › asz3mhlfhvrnk7vego5gaz7o… · • swope park, including the...

D A T A B O O K

1

CREDITS and acknowledgments

Mayor: The Honorable Sly James

City Manager: Troy Schulte

City Council: Dick Davis ............................................................................ 1st District

Scott Wagner ........................................................... 1st District-at-Large

Russ Johnson ....................................................................... 2nd District

Ed Ford ..................................................................2nd District-at-Large

Jermaine Reed ...................................................................... 3rd District

Melba Curls .............................................................3rd District-at-Large

Jan Marcason ....................................................................... 4th District

Jim Glover .............................................................. 4th District-at-Large

Michael Brooks .....................................................................5th District

Cindy Circo .............................................................5th District-at-Large

John A. Sharp ...................................................................... 6th District

Scott Taylor ............................................................ 6th District-at-Large

PREPARED BY:

The City of Kansas City, Missouri City Planning & Development Department

D ATA B O O KS W O P E A R E A P L A N

City Planning Contributing Staff: Gerald Williams, Co-Project Manager

Randy Dunn, Co-Project Manager

Steve Lebofsky, AICP, Planner

Bryan Foster, Planning Technician

Ron Simmons, Graphic Design Specialist

2 S W O P E A R E A P L A ND ATA B O O K2

Introduction .........................................................................................5Purpose of the Databook ............................................................................5

Purpose of an Area Plan .............................................................................5

Planning Area Location ..............................................................................7

Area Overview ..........................................................................................7

History .................................................................................................9

Land Use and Development ..................................................................13

Existing Land Use ................................................................................... 13

Existing Zoning ...................................................................................... 17

Property Ownership ................................................................................. 19

Economic Incentive Areas ........................................................................ 21

Building Permits ..................................................................................... 24

Major Development Projects ...................................................................... 27

Demographics .....................................................................................29

Overview ............................................................................................... 29

Distressed Areas ..................................................................................... 30

Population Change .................................................................................. 31

Population Rate of Change ....................................................................... 33

Households That Moved Between 2005 and 2010 ......................................... 35

Household Size ....................................................................................... 35

Houshold Type ........................................................................................ 36

Population by Age ................................................................................... 37

Population by Race ................................................................................. 38

Educational Attainment ........................................................................... 38

D ATA B O O K

3

CONTENTStable of

D ATA B O O KS W O P E A R E A P L A N

Household Income .................................................................................. 39

Employment ........................................................................................... 40

Occupation ............................................................................................ 40

Housing Value and Occupancy ................................................................... 41

Housing Occupancy ................................................................................. 42

Foreclosures ........................................................................................... 43

Violent Crime ......................................................................................... 44

Non-Violent Crime ................................................................................... 44

Population and Housing Summary Report .................................................... 45

Infrastructure .................................................................................... 47

Key Issues ............................................................................................. 47

Water and Sewer Issues ............................................................................ 48

Transportation .....................................................................................57

Vehicular Circulation ............................................................................... 58

Transit .................................................................................................. 63

Trails and Bike Routes ............................................................................. 66

Walkability ............................................................................................. 67

Means of Transportation to Work ............................................................... 68

Planning Issues Summary .....................................................................57

Key Land Use and Development Issues ....................................................... 69

Key Housing and Demographic Isues .......................................................... 70

Key Infrastructure Issues .......................................................................... 71

Key Transportation Issues ......................................................................... 72

Public Realm/Urban Design Issues ............................................................. 72

4 S W O P E A R E A P L A ND ATA B O O K

5S W O P E A R E A P L A N D ATA B O O K

INTRODUCTION

Planning is a process

by which a community

assesses what it is and

what it wants to

become, then decides

how to make it happen.

Specifically, planning

guides public policy

decisions on land use,

infrastructure, public

services and zoning.

Purpose of the Data BookThe data book supports the planning process by providing background and supporting information to be used in the development of the Swope Area Plan. The data book will be a companion resource document which provides:• information about the area that will serve as a foundation for further

analysis and plan recommendations.

• a summary of previous, on-going and planned initiatives in the area.

• a preliminary list of planning issues to be addressed in the plan (this is an initial list which will be expanded during the planning process).

Purpose of an Area PlanArea plans recommend strategies to help realize a community’s long term vision for the future and provide a proactive, com-prehensive framework to guide public decisions on land use, housing, public improvements, commu-nity development, and city services. Area plans provide both proactive strategies (phased action steps which are outcome driven) and reactive guidelines (evaluation tool to guide future decision making). The plan will be used by the City and the Community alike and will become an element of our Compre-hensive Plan. The city is divided into 18 geographic areas for which area plans are being prepared (see maps).


INTRODUCTIONPlanning Area Location The Swope Planning Area is located on Kansas City’s east side, to the east of Brookside and southeast of the Country Club Plaza. The area contains diverse landmarks and districts such as:• Brush Creek Corridor

• Blue River Corridor

• Troost Avenue Corridor

• 63rd Street Corridor

• Prospect Ave. Corridor

• Bruce R. Watkins Drive Corridor

• Historic Boulevards such as The Paseo , Meyer Boulevard, and Swope Parkway

• The Landing Shopping Center

• Swope Park, including the Kansas City Zoo and Starlight Theater

• Research Medical Center

• Business Parks such as Dodson, Byrams Ford, Blue Banks and Swope Park

Area OverviewThe Swope Area is truly unique to Kansas City and is home to some of the City’s most treasured assets. Over the past decades, the planning area has declined as a result of outmigration and disinvestment. High crime rates coupled with aging and deteriorating infrastructure has plagued the area. Additionally, higher than average vacancy and foreclosure rates have added to the challenges facing the area.

However the numerous assets found in the area should not be overlooked; historic boulevards, Swope Park, the Blue River, Brush Creek, well organized neighbor-hoods, public transportation and quick highway access are all positive attributes to the area.

Several recent initiatives promise to bring new investment to the area. The Green Impact Zone and the Middle Blue/Target Green project are providing improve-ments to area infrastructure along with strategies to leverage private investment. A new City led initiative to redevelop vacant land at 63rd and Prospect will provide opportunities for growth and revitalization.

The Swope Area Plan will develop policies designed to make certain that the City is able to sustain the momentum of recent successes and initiatives while providing strategies to address the unique challenges facing the Swope Planning area.


Even before any of what is now the Swope Planning area was annexed, it was making history. The Santa Fe Trail, the Civil War, and the City Beau-tiful movement all touched the area. In 1864, Confederate and Union forces clashed in a battle at Byram’s Ford over the Big Blue River (just north of what is now 63rd Street). The site contains landscape features and a road associated with the Battle of Westport. The Byram’s Ford National Register Historic District consists of the Byram’s Ford site and the Byram’s Ford road site. The historic ford of the Big Blue River and the historic wagon road leading to the ford figured prominently in the Battle of Westport’s easternmost component, commonly referred to as the Battle of the Big Blue. The Byram’s Ford Historic District possesses the only identified remnants of the Big Blue Battlefield which retain integrity in location, setting, feeling and association reminiscent of the environment found by the contending Union and Confederate forces on October 22-23, 1864.

HISTORY

After the Civil War, Kansas City rapidly grew, and industrial uses along with their pollutants also increased. A nationwide movement to clean up cities and provide a good quality of life was embraced in Kansas City. The City Beautiful Movement grew out of the 1893 Report of the Board of Park and Boulevard Commissions of Kansas City, MO, presented by George Kessler, a landscape architect, to the Board of Park Commission-ers. Although the entire parks and boulevard system, and its effect on city development, is a representation of the City Beautiful movement, Swope Park is perhaps most closely associated with the movement in Kansas City. Swope Park is Kansas City’s most prominent landscape architectural con-tribution to the City Beautiful Movement.


In 1896, Thomas H. Swope, a real estate investor, gave 1,350 acres of land to the City for what is now known as Swope Memorial Park. In celebration of the generosity of Swope, most of the city’s businesses closed on June 25th of that year and 18,000 people swarmed to the site for a “Jubilee.” In his later years, “Colonel” Swope, as he liked to be called, was fond of saying that he felt he owed a debt to the working people of the community whose labors had enhanced the value of Swope’s real estate holdings, the basis of his fortune. William Rockhill Nelson, publisher of the Kansas City Star, encouraged Swope to make his gift by waging a long campaign in his newspaper on behalf of a park and boulevard system for Kansas City. In 1896 many citizens of the community felt that Swope Park, miles beyond the city limits, was so remote that ordinary people, for whose use it was intended, would never be able to reach or enjoy it. However, the park proved to be very popular and on December 13, 1909, the Kansas City Zoo opened in the park and expand-ed rapidly through private and public support.

Swope Park today, replete with both natural and built attractions, is a trib-ute not only to Colonel Swope but also to the vision of civic leaders who accepted Swope’s original benefaction and immediately began planning its development. Additional tracts of land have been acquired since 1896, bringing today’s total acreage to 1,763 with the zoo encompassing over 200 acres, making it the second-largest municipal park in the nation. The


HISTORYKansas City Zoo expanded when in 1990 voters approved a $50 million bond issue to completely overhaul the Zoo with new exhibits and more exotic animals. Bolstered by fundraising efforts of the Friends of the Zoo, the $71 million renovation took only five years to complete. The Friends of the Zoo were designated as the management entity for the Zoo and suc-cessfully pushed for a dedicated sales tax to support the zoo.

The area around the park slowly developed and the wealthy of Kansas City were the first to build large estates around the new park. The Ira C. Van Noy and Charles S. Van Noy residences, with two large houses on a seventeen acres lot adjacent to the park, exemplifies the early development around Swope Park as country getaways for the city’s upper class. Other develop-ments such as The Highlands in the Blue Hills Neighborhood, Marlborough and Blenheim took advantage of the idea of park like settings to attract the wealthy to build large houses in the surrounding area that were followed by smaller craftsman and Tudor style bungalows during the early twentieth century and finally some ranch and modern homes after World War II.

Around Kansas City, many small towns were built and some were promoted as a suburban oasis before they were annexed into the city. Marlborough, one of these communities, was promoted by the T.B. Potter Realty Company as a garden spot of the metropolis to escape the grim of the city. The com-pany built an electric streetcar line to the area to promote its development. Businesses along Prospect Ave and Troost Ave sprung up in support of the new influx of population, as well as the expansion of schools.

Another community, Dodson, a small industrial community located around 85th and Prospect, was annexed in 1947. This community had been linked to Kansas City via a steam-powered rail line since the 1880s. The line ran south from Westport to today’s 87th Street and Brooklyn. The service was called a “dummy line” because the engine was hidden within the steam car so that the machinery would not frighten horses. Because of the noise and smoke associated with the steam engine, J.C. Nichols led a group, the Westport and South Side Improvement Association, to help subsidize the Metropolitan Street Railway Company in electrifying the line in 1906. The town was next to the Blue River and was a natural area of growth for industry, like the areas of Leeds and Centropolis further north on the Blue River. The area still boasts many of Kansas City’s industrial uses, but the former post office and bank buildings at the corner of 85th & Prospect speak to the history of the town of Dodson.


The 1947 annexation of neighboring areas also recognized the nation-wide movement of annexation to provide space for growth in cities to accommodate needed housing and industry after World War II. The President Garden Apartments at 82nd and Troost were constructed be-tween 1944 and 1948 as worker housing for the Pratt Whitney factory on Bannister Road. The apartments were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998.

There were also two significant historic African American neighborhoods located in the planning area. While most people tend to think of the 18th

& Vine area as the historic African American neighborhood of Kansas City, there were also small neighborhoods outside the city boundaries. A small neighborhood along 54th Street was one of these areas. The Phyllis Wheatley School located at 5332 South Benton was the only school for the children in the area until it was replaced by a new Wheatley in 1954. The school is currently owned by the Willis Chapel AME church.

The Sheraton Estates neighborhood represents another significant gain in equal housing for African Americans in Kansas City. Sheraton was the first non-restricted neighborhood built in Kansas City and was designed by the firm of Hare & Hare. The first homes were all in the Modern style and were designed by the Donald Scholz firm of Ohio, known for its modern homes designs. Many prominent African American families, including Bruce Watkins, quickly moved into this new neighborhood.

In the 1950s, a transportation link between downtown and southeast Kan-sas City was proposed. However, construction on today’s Bruce R. Watkins Drive was blocked by a 1973 lawsuit in which several groups asserted that a freeway would be damaging to the neighborhoods and the environment. In 1985 the state, city, and neighborhood groups reached an agreement that allowed construction to begin and directed part of the roadway to be a parkway, rather than a freeway, and thus more neighborhood friendly. The city named the roadway in 1987 in honor of Bruce Watkins (1924-1980), a political and social activist. Watkins made innumerable contributions to the development of Kansas City and towards the advancement of civil rights for African-Americans. The entire project including enhancements to bridge design and landscaping the full length of the roadway, cost approximately $300 million, including $32.5 million for the enhancements. Highway crews completed the final segment into downtown in 2001.

The Civil War battles, Swope Park, the City Beautiful Movement and Bruce R. Watkins Drive represent the major historical and developmental highlights of the a planning. These significant resources continue to provide information about the past and important physical access to the area’s many assets.


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and

Existing Land UseSee Table 1 for a complete list of land uses.

RESIDENTIAL USES (REFER TO MAP)The area is predominantly residential, accounting for 81% of all properties and more than one-third of the land area (including vacant residential lots).

• Single family homes are the single largest land use in the area accounting for 3/4 of all parcels and over 1/3 of the land area.

VACANT PARCELS (REFER TO MAP)• Opportunities for infill development are abundant with vacant

commercial (red) and vacant residential lots (orange) accounting for 31% of the parcels in the area (2,194 lots) and 12% of the total land area. Most of these are vacant residential lots (1,987 parcels), representing the 3rd largest land use in terms of land area (456 acres, 7% of the total area).


INDUSTRIAL USES (REFER TO MAP)These are the 5th largest land use by area and are predomi-nantly located in the northern and eastern portion of the area (near railroads and the Blue River).

BUSINESS AREAS (REFER TO MAP)These account for a small percentage of the area. Office and commercial uses and have typically developed in a linear pattern along primary corridors (Prospect, Blue Parkway, 63rd Street and Troost).


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and

STREETS (REFER TO MAP)Right-of-way for roads and highways and parks and permanent open space accounts for over 34% of the total land area.

Table 1 – Existing Land Use

Land Use Acres % of Area Parcels % of

ParcelsInstitutional 24.2 0.3 17 0.1Transportation / Utility 65.8 0.9 11 0.1Parking 68.5 1.0 87 0.5Medium Density Residential 114.9 1.6 403 2.4High Density Residential 117.0 1.7 41 0.2Permanent Open Space / Cemetery 256.0 3.7 73 0.4Commercial 298.2 4.3 374 2.2Industrial 367.3 5.2 192 1.1Church / School / Medical / Library 378.6 5.4 102 0.6Natural Resources / Vacant 822.3 11.7 2,194 13.1Parks / Recreation 2,125.3 30.4 204 1.2Single Family 2,363.1 33.8 13,089 78.0

Total 7,001.2 100 16,787 100


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and

Existing Zoning• The area is predominantly zoned for multi family residential use (nearly 2/3

of the area).

• Discrepancies exist between current zoning and established land use pat-terns. For example:

~ While only about 21% of the area is zoned for single family residences, 78% of the parcels and 34% of the land area is comprised of single-family homes. This suggests that many single family areas are inappropriately zoned (with multi family or non residential zoning).

Table 2 – Zoning Summary

Zoning Acres % of AreaMPD 2 0.02UR 131 1.56Commercial 437 5.17Industrial 756 8.95Residential - Single Family 1,820 21.54Residential - Multi Family 5,302 62.76

Total 5,341 100


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and

Property Ownership• The largest land owner in the area is the City of Kansas City, Missouri

with several parks and tracts adjacent to the Blue River for flood control purposes.

• Land Trust of Jackson County, Missouri (a governmental corporation which sells properties that have failed to sell on the courthouse steps to satisfy unpaid taxes) owns the largest number of properties (estimated 590 com-prising 133 acres).

Table 3 – Top 10 Land Owners (by acres)

Owner Acres # of PropertiesCity of Kansas City, Mo. 2,089 209Jackson County, Mo. 171 6Southeast Landfill, LLC 160 18Kansas City School District 159 13Stonemor Missouri, LLC 155 2Land Trust of Jackson County, Mo. 133 590Vance Brothers, Inc. 85 37Swope Community Builders 82 146Midwest Division Rmc, LLC 74 25Nazarene Theological Seminary 27 14


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and

Economic Incentive AreasThe City of Kansas City has available several tax incentives to encourage development and redevelopment and to promote job creation.

TAX INCREMENT FINANCINGTax Increment Financing is a financing and development tool that allows future real property taxes and other taxes generated by new development to pay for costs of construction of public infrastructure and other improvements. When an area is redeveloped it often generates new taxes (property tax, sales tax, earnings tax) above what the property generated before. This new tax revenue is called the “tax increment.” In TIF areas, this increment can de diverted back to the developer to pay for specified costs of a redevelopment project. The increased property tax and a portion of the other new revenues are captured and placed in a special fund to pay for eligible costs of redeveloping the area.

CHAPTER 353The Urban Redevelopment Corporation Law, State Statute “Chapter 353” establishes incentives in the form of property tax abatement and the power of eminent domain, to stimulate private investment and redevelopment of blighted areas in the city. The urban redevelopment corporation may receive maximum tax abatement for 100% of the value of the improvements to the property for a period of ten years and for 50% for the following 15 years.

URBAN RENEWALAn Urban Renewal Area (URA) is a tax abatement incentive. These areas are identified and declared by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) and the City Council of Kansas City, Missouri to be blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating, constituting a serious and growing menace injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the state. Once designated, the LCRA works to remove blight-ed properties and encourage redevelopment within designated Urban Renewal Areas. LCRA, with City Council approval, has the authority to grant property tax abatement, issue bonds and assist with land acquisition.

PLANNED INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION AUTHORITY (PIEA)This is another economic development tool available in Kansas City to encourage new job creation through tax abatement (similar to 353 tax abatement), the power of eminent domain, and bond financing for land ac-quisition, construction and equipment in designated redevelopment areas.

Incentive: Inducement provided by government to encourage de-velopment of a certain type or in a certain area. Examples include tax abatement, tax reduc-tion, power to condemn and acquire prop erty, density bonuses, etc.


ENTERPRISE ZONES The Kansas City, Missouri Enterprise Zone is an area of general economic distress that has been given special designations by the City and State. The unemployment and poverty levels of zone residents are significantly higher than the statewide average. The goal of the program is to attract new business and encourage existing business to expand or modernize their operations located within the Enterprise Zone.

ENHANCED ENTERPRISE ZONES This program offers new and expanding businesses located within a designated Enterprise Zone a variety of state and/or local tax credits. Benefits are designed to encourage investment and growth and to help address unemployment and underemployment within the City’s En-terprise Zones. Tax exemptions and credits apply to State Corporate Income Tax and local property tax abatement for property owners who make improvement to real property. Most of the area lies within one of the City’s three Enterprise Zones.

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAMThe Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides $7.3 million to the City of Kansas City, Missouri to acquire and repair vacant, foreclosed homes and to demolish blighted structures. The goal of the program is to sell these rehabbed properties to new owner-occupants.

SPECIAL DISTRICTSThere are several types of special districts that have been utilized through-out the City to assist with various activities they have been successfully utilized and should be explored to achieve the goals established during the planning process:• Community Improvement District (CID) - A CID allows private property

owners to tax themselves for improvements and services which benefit the entire community. A CID can provide assistance to or construct, install, re-pair, maintain or equip a broad range of public improvements and facilities, as well as undertaking security and promotional activities.

• Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) - Neighborhood Improvement Districts use a special assessment against the real property within the NID in order to provide financing for additional public improvements.

• Special Business District - Special Business Districts can be created to permit property owners to pay additional taxes or special assessments for the purpose of improving their neighborhoods and businesses.

The following map illustrates where these economic development tools have been established in the Swope area (see map).


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and


Building PermitsDevelopment activity was primarily residential based on permit value (see table). However, more housing units were demolished than were built, resulting in a net loss of 557 housing units since 2000.

Table 4 – Building Permit Summary, 2002 - 2011

Non-Residential Number of Permits Permit Value*

Additions, Alterations, Repairs 450 $81,102,871

New Construction 278 $56,833,998

Demolitions 79 NA

Total $137,936,869

Residential Dwelling Units Gained or Lost Permit Value*

Additions, Alterations, Repairs NA $13,780,436

New Construction Multi-family 158 $12,054,910

New Construction Single-family 154 $12,898,221

Demolitions 467 NA

Total $38,733,567

* Dollar figures represent the cost of specific work authorized by a building permit. They often do not include other costs of work performed in conjunction with the building-permit-authorized work. For example, new construction permits only reflect basic structural work, and not the cost of electrical systems, plumbing systems, etc. (for which separate permits are obtained), nor the cost of land, architects’ fees, develop-ers’ profits, etc. While building permit dollars are not good indicators of full, absolute project costs, they are useful in making comparisons of relative levels of construction activity in different areas or at different times. Even with time comparisons, however, it must be remembered that building permit dollars have not been adjusted for inflation. Estimates of full value can be attempted by multiplying new construction building permit values by 2.3, and multiplying addition, alteration and repair building permit values by 1.4.

Permit activity of all types is dispersed throughout the area, but new resi-dential construction appears to be concentrated in the northwestern (Blue Hills, Town Fork Creek and Citadel) and southeastern (Marlborough East) portions of the Swope area (see map).


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and


Demolition Building permits between 2001 and 2011 are dispersed throughout the plan area however there is a concentration of demolitions associated with development projects at 63rd & Prospect and near 51st and Cleveland Ave.


LAND USEDEVELOPMENT

and

Major Development ProjectsThe following table and maps summarize development in the area between 2007 and 2012.

Table 5 – Development Summary, 2007-2012

Map ID

Project ID

Project Title Anticipated Completion

Status Cost

1 493 Brush Creek Flood Control/ Aesthetic Improvements 2014 Underway $132 mil.

2 1685 Pemberton Park Grand - family Housing 2011 Underway $8 mil.

3 1632 Lower Blue Parkway Industrial Bridge Replacement 2008 Completed $10 mil.

4 1089 Blue River Flood Control 2012 Underway $290 mil.

5 1457 Town Fork Creek Drainage 2012 Underway $3 mil.

6 786 Citadel Single Family Housing 2013 Underway $26 mil.

7 1544 Citadel Plaza Shopping Center I 2011 Underway $52 mil.

8 1737 Metro Plaza Renovation 2012 Underway $6 mil.

9 1402 Fire Station #29 Renovation 2007 Completed $3 mil.

10 1405 Southeast Community Center 2008 Completed $12 mil.

11 1268 Research Medical Center Improvements 2007 Completed $92 mil.

12 1548 Starlight Theater Improvements 2007 Completed $3 mil.

13 1606 Zoo Improvements 2008 Completed $11 mil.

14 1239 Swope Park Industrial Area Flood Control 2015 Underway $26 mil.

15 1087 Metro Patrol Division New Location 2010 Underway $16 mil.

16 1628 Stowers Institute South 2009 Completed $20 mil.

17 1624 Genesys Industrial Renovation 2008 Completed $8 mil.


DEMOGRAPHICSIntroductionAnalysis of demographic trends helps to provide insight into potential strengths and opportunities within the Swope Plan area. The following demographic analysis is based on data obtained from:

• 2010 United States Census,

• American Community Survey 2009,

• City Planning and Development estimates,

• Mid-America Regional Council,

• and the Missouri Department of Economic Development.

OverviewOverall the data shows a distressed community facing considerable chal-lenges that has been declining for some time. Four consecutive decades of population and housing loss continue to erode the community fabric. Housing values are well below citywide levels while housing vacancy is well above. This is exacerbated by high foreclosure, poverty and unemployment rates. A dramatic loss of school aged children impacts an already struggling school district and a consistently high crime rate creates a negative area image and undermines revitalization efforts.

However there are some positive signs, including a trend showing an increase in overall educational attainment and declining violent and non-violent crime rates. The demographic data contained within this chapter provides a baseline to measure future improvement or contin-ued decline as well as insight into changes in the area and will lead to strategies to address area challenges.

The following definitions apply:

• PlanArea: Land and/or persons within the Plan Area boundaries, as described and mapped on page 6.

• Citywide: All land incorporated and/or persons residing within Kansas City, Missouri.


Distressed AreasThe following map was created as part of the New Tools Task Force, cre-ated in 2007 by the City of Kansas City, Missouri to determine what areas may require new and or redesigned incentive programs, and identifies the Swope area as one of the most distressed areas in the City. The Compos-ite Distress rating is based upon the following nine indicators:• Median Household Income - 2000• Percent Unemployed - 2000• Jobs Change - 2000-2007• Non-Residential Buildings Change - 2000-2007• High Cost Loans Percent - 2004-2007• Active Foreclosures per Housing Unit - 2008• Crimes per Acre - 2006• Housing Units Change in Building Permits - 2000-2007• USPS Residential Vacancy Percent - 2008


DEMOGRAPHICSPOPULATION CHANGEThe 2010 population for the Swope Plan Area was 31,463, a 15.5% percent decrease from 2000. The area has seen a steady decline in population since 1980, which is mirrored by growing housing vacancy, smaller house-hold sizes and a decline in the number of housing units.

The population change map on the following page shows where the population increased and decreased from 2000 to 2010. There are a few pockets of growth which include: The Citadel, portions of Blue Hills and Gregory Ridge. The areas with the greatest decrease include Blenheim, the area around 63rd and Prospect and Foxtown East.

The housing unit change map on page xx shows where in the Plan Area the number of housing units has increased and decreased from 2000 to 2010. The population is declining at a much faster rate than housing units, in-dicating a high number of vacant homes in the plan area (a nearly twofold increase in vacant housing units from 2000 to 2010). A decline in housing units can be found concentrated in Blenheim, Marlborough, Mount Cleve-land and the 63rd and Prospect area. There are some areas where the number of housing units has increased which correspond to the areas with popula-tion growth.


DEMOGRAPHICSPOPULATION RATE OF CHANGEThe percent change in population from 2000 to 2010 shows the area is losing population at an increasing rate. Meanwhile, the city as a whole has gained population since 1990 and the pace of growth appears to be increasing (after several decades of population loss).


DEMOGRAPHICSHOUSEHOLDS THAT MOVED BETWEEN 2005 AND 2010As of 2010, 41% of household within the Planning area moved over the past five years. This is compared to nearly 52% Citywide, meaning there are more long term residents in the Plan Area.

HOUSEHOLD SIZEHouseholds in the Swope area are smaller in 2010 than they were in 2000 (2.49 persons per household in 2010, down from 2.56 persons in 2000). Although Swope households remain slightly larger than the Citywide average of 2.34 persons per household. There are fewer households with one and two persons and a larger occurrence of households with 3 or more persons in Swope. The decrease in household size in recent decades (reflecting national trends), may account for a portion of the decrease in population.


HOUSEHOLD TYPEIn 2010, 61% of the Planning Area’s households were “family households,” compared to 57% Citywide. This is a decrease from 66% in 2000. Family households are defined as a household consisting of two or more persons living together who are related. Compared to the City as a whole, Swope has fewer married couples and nearly doubles the percentage of house-holds headed by a female.


DEMOGRAPHICSPOPULATION BY AGEThe median age of 35.3 is comparable to the Citywide median age of 34.7. There is a greater percentage of people under 19 years of age in the Swope Planning Area than Citywide and a lower percentage of persons aged 25 to 44 (typically wage earning years), which may be indicative of the low household income.

The Swope area has an aging population (mirroring citywide trends) with the median age increasing from 26.2 in 1980 to 35.3 in 2010.

Table 6 – Population by Age

Age Swope Citywide0-24 37.3% 34.1%25-54 38.2% 43.8%55+ 24.5% 22.1%

Total 100% 100%


POPULATION BY RACEThe population within the Planning area is less diverse that the City as a whole. African Americans are by far the largest group within the Plan-ning Area with over 85% of the population compared to 30% Citywide. There are significantly fewer persons of all other races within the Planning Area when compared to the City. The decrease in Caucasian persons and increase in persons of Hispanic origin (of any race) since 1980 mirrors citywide trends.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTOverall educational attainment lags behind the City as a whole. Slightly more than 40% of Swope area residents have attended some college com-pared to nearly 60% Citywide. Approximately 22% of residents over the age of 25 have not earned a high school diploma compared to 13% Citywide.


DEMOGRAPHICSHOUSEHOLD INCOMEHouseholds in the Planning Area had a lower household income in 2010 than Citywide ($28,456 compared to $44,629 citywide). Furthermore, the poverty rate of residents in Swope was 29.3%, which is considerably higher than the Citywide rate of 17.6%. This could be attributed to the lower educational attainment of Swope residents, fewer persons in “wage earning years”, higher unemployment, and the higher percentage of per-sons in traditionally lower wage occupations.


EMPLOYMENTThe unemployment rate of area residents has been increasing since 1980 and has been consistently higher than the City as a whole. In 2010, the unemployment rate was 15.8% compared to 9% for the City, this may be attributed to the lower level of educational attainment for area residents as well as the lower population of those between the ages of 25-54 (typical wage earning years).

OCCUPATIONThe Planning Area has fewer people working in managerial jobs than City-wide and a higher percentage of persons in office, service and production occupations (typically lower wage jobs). This could be related to the lower level of educational attainment in the Swope area.


DEMOGRAPHICSHOUSING VALUE AND OCCUPANCYHousing values in Swope are considerably lower than home values City-wide. The median value of homes in 2010 was $73,126, which is just over half the Citywide median of $136,731. In the Swope Planning Area 76% of homes were valued at less than $100,000, compared to 33% citywide.

CHANGE IN HOME PRICES, 2007


HOUSING OCCUPANCY

VACANCY:• According to the 2010 Census, 19.3% of all housing units within the Swope

Plan Area were vacant compared to 13.3% Citywide.

• The number of vacant housing units has increased dramatically over the past decade, nearly doubling between 2000 and 2010 (1,563 units vs. 2,979 units in 2010).

• Of those homes that are vacant, 54% are not on the market

RENTER AND OWNER OCCUPANCY:• Approximately 65.5% of occupied single family housing units in Swope are

owner occupied compared to 78.4% Citywide.


DEMOGRAPHICSFORECLOSURES The Swope area is one of the heaviest hit by the recent foreclosure crisis (see map). Foreclosure rates in Swope are among the highest in the region and may contribute to high vacancy rate and low housing values.

FORECLOSURES IN THE CORE METRO AREA, 2007


VIOLENT CRIMESince 1984 the violent crime rate in the Planning Area has been consis-tently higher than the Citywide rate. Increases and decreases in violent crime in the Plan Area have generally mirrored citywide trends, with the exception of 2003 and beyond when the crime increased in the Plan Area while citywide crime decreased. For the purpose of this document violent crimes consist of: homicide, manslaughter, rape, strong armed robbery, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and non-aggravated assaults. All other reported incidents are generally considered non-violent crimes.

* Due to a transition to a new crime information system, no reliable 2007 data are available

NON-VIOLENT CRIMEThe non-violent crime rate in Swope peaked in 1987 and has generally been on the decline since. In 1994 the non-violent crime rate feel below the Citywide average, however, by 2003 it once again surpassed the City-wide non-violent crime rate although still on the decline.

* Due to a transition to a new crime information system, no reliable 2007 data are available

In conclusion, the Swope Plan Area, while facing many similar challenges to other urban communities has great potential to build upon some areas of strength where positive activities are taking place in several areas. The Swope area has the potential to be an even more desirable community to live work and recreation in.


DEMOGRAPHICSPOPULATION AND HOUSING SUMMARY REPORT


INFRASTRUCTUREThe Swope area is generally well served by infrastructure. Since the area is largely developed it also has a mostly complete infrastructure system (most of the area is served by storm and sanitary sewer and water).

Key Issues PROVIDING MAINTENANCE FOR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE• Much of the Swope area was annexed in the early part of the 20th century

and has some of the oldest infrastructure in the city. Maintenance or re-placement of aging infrastructure, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, water, and sewer lines is one of the biggest infrastructure challenges in this area of the city. A lack of private investment/redevelopment in the area has meant that the primary burden for infrastructure has been on the City. Citywide, maintenance needs have far outstripped City resources. Targeted redevelop-ment may begin to generate momentum for more private investment that will help with infrastructure costs.

ADDRESSING OVERFLOWS OF THE COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM• Most of the Swope Area (west of the Blue River) has combined storm and

sanitary sewers. During heavy rains combined sewers can overflow (mixing sewage with rainwater) increasing bacteria levels in receiving streams. Implementation of the Overflow Control Plan (see “Combined Sewers”) to reduce these overflows will bring an infusion of new public invest-ment to the Swope Area and create benefits and opportunities for Swope neighborhoods.

IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS TO ACHIEVE MULTIPLE BENEFITS• Sustainable solutions maximize environmental, community and economic

benefits so that infrastructure improvements create a stronger, more appealing, and more prosperous community. This also includes green solutions which are strategies designed to reduce stormwater runoff, reduce water pollution, create recreational amenities, and protect natural resources through the use of “green infrastructure” (also referred to as “natural systems”). The Swope area includes a large pilot area for green infrastructure (see Middle Blue River basin below). As additional im-provements are planned within the area, sustainable/green solutions should be explored.


Water and Sewer IssuesCOMBINED SEWERS (OVERFLOW CONTROL PLAN) 1

The entire Swope area has combined storm and sanitary sewers (all areas north of 85th Street and west of the Blue River). During heavy rains, the combined sewers do not have enough capacity for the combined flows. To mitigate this situation, the City has prepared the Overflow Control Plan (OCP) in cooperation with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce the frequency and volume of overflows from its combined and separate sanitary sewer systems. This plan is a consent decree to which the City is legally bound to the federal government to meet the goals and timeline stated in the plan. The OCP establishes strategies, prioritization of projects, timelines, costs and policies. The following is a summary of improvements proposed over the next 25 years in the combined sewer area (which includes the Swope area).

EARLY YEARSIn the combined sewer areas, repairs to the existing system are scheduled to occur in early years. This includes neighborhood sewer rehabilitation, green infrastructure pilot projects (see Middle Blue/Target Green Pilot project) and sewer separation projects:

• SEPARATION PROJECTS – The map shows areas where separation of the com-bined sewers is recommended. Several of these are in the Swope area (see blue areas in the Town Fork Creek and Middle Blue River basin on the map). The proximity to neighborhoods may make these projects disruptive to the everyday life of citizens. The City will focus on shortening construction times, limiting disruption, and coordinating with other planned improvements in the neighborhoods.

Separation Areas (Blue)

1 Kansas City, Missouri Overflow Control Plan, Water Services Department, January 2009


INFRASTRUCTUREMIDDLE YEARS The middle years of the plan will focus on maximizing the capacity within the existing system, analyzing the results of previous improvements, and improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment plants.

FINAL YEARS The final years of the plan will address necessary improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment plants and adjustment and construction of proposed structural storage solutions:

• STORAGE PROJECTS - The OCP includes contingency plans for the construction of structural storage facilities (deep tunnels to store overflows – see map) should system improvement and green solutions not be sufficient to reduce sewer overflows to desired levels. Two of these deep tunnels are in the Swope area, generally along Brush Creek and Town Fork Creek (see map).

OCP PROJECTS BY BASINThere are a number of specific projects identified in the OCP within the Town Fork Creek, Brush Creek, and Middle Blue basins. The implications of these projects will be explored in more detail during the planning pro-cess. The following maps depict proposed improvements in each basin:

Proposed Deep Tunnel Locations


INFRASTRUCTUREMIDDLE BLUE RIVER BASIN GREEN SOLUTIONS PILOT PROJECTThe City of Kansas City, Mo., Water Services Department is implement-ing a pilot project to measure and evaluate the performance of green solutions within a portion of the Middle Blue River Basin. This pilot project is believed to be the larg-est project using green solutions for combined sewer overflow control currently being planned for con-struction in the United States. It represents just one component of the City’s commitment to use green solutions to control runoff as part of the Overflow Control Plan. In this area (see “pilot” and “control” areas on map) green infrastructure is being installed to capture storm water prior to entering the combined sewer system as part of the Overflow Control Plan. These features include above and below ground improvements that capture and hold storm water. Recent improvements in the neighborhood include rain gardens, porous sidewalks, and curb extensions (see photos). Visit www.kcmo.org/target-green for more information.

76th Street east of Troost before and after sidewalk and street improvements. (photos courtesy of URS Corporation)


INFRASTRUCTURESTORMWATER MANAGEMENT (KC-ONE PLAN):The KC-ONE Plan is the comprehensive stormwater management plan for the City. The mission of the KC-One Project is to create “one Plan, one People, and one Voice” for the management of stormwater throughout Kansas City.” The Water Services Department has identified 35 watersheds within Kansas City for which master plans have been developed. KC-ONE will bring these 35 master plans together into one comprehensive plan and detail the City’s strategy, policy and administrative plans for the future of the stormwater management program. The master plans for each of the Swope areas three watersheds (Brush Creek, Town Fork Creek and Blue River) provide local recommendations, while serving as a component of the overall KC-One Plan. The recommendations of these studies and any implications will be examined in more detail during the planning process.

SMALL WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAMAs part of its small main replacement program, the Department of Water Services is replacing selected 2” and 4” water mains with 6” and 8” water mains, increasing reliability and providing better fire protection. Lines with a high frequency of breaks are also being replaced. The program is scheduled to end in 2013. The following map shows the location of water mains four inches and smaller, which appears to be somewhat limited in the Swope area.

SANITARY SEWERS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMSAlthough most of the area is well-served by sanitary sewers (see previous discussion of combined sewer overflows/wet weather discussion), there are a few areas (see map on page 54) where there appear to be concentra-tions of septic systems (where buildings are not connected to the sanitary sewer system). This occurs for a number of reasons:• Some areas do not have lateral sewers available (generally installed by

developer).

• Some areas cannot tie into City sewers because the watershed they are in is not served by a City Interceptor Sewer.

• Some properties were developed before sewers were available and have chosen not to tie into available sewers.

The City of Kansas City, under the Sanitary Sewer Assessment Program, is working to eliminate septic tanks throughout the City over ten years at a cost of approximately $60 million. Voters authorized the Water Services Department to issue up to $10 million in Sewer Revenue Bonds to provide supplemental funding of 50% of the construction phase to eliminate septic tanks. At construction, the City will secure funding from several sources not yet identified for the remaining 50% of construction costs.


INFRASTRUCTURESWOPE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTSThe following table and map summarize capital improvement projects from fiscal year 2009-2010 to fiscal year 2011-2012. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather a description of major projects in the planning area. A more comprehensive examination of current infrastructure projects and future needs will be completed during the planning process.

Table 7 – Swope Capital Improvements, 2009-2012

Map ID

Project Name Project Type

Fiscal Year

TotalCost

1 Blue Hills Park Parks / Rec 2010 $375,000

2 51st St. from Indiana and Swope Pkwy Trail Trails 2010 $65,000

3 55th St. & Jackson Ave. - curb inlet replacement Drainage 2012 $60,000

4 59th St. & Bruce R. Watikins - sidewalks Curb / Sidewalks 2010 $48,000

5 60th St. & Jackson Ave. - curb inlet installation Drainage 2012 $100,000

6 NW and SW corners of 60th Ter. & Elmwood - inlets and pipes Drainage 2011 $200,000

7 Swope Park Pool Phase 1 - water playground Parks / Rec 2012 $80,000

8 Kansas City Zoo maintenance Public Buildings 2010 $2.65 mil

9 Swope Park Disc Golf Parks / Rec 2010 $45,000

10 Starlight Theatre Parks / Rec 2010 $200,000

11 67th & Myrtle - convert grate inlet to field inlet Drainage 2012 $60,000

12 Meyer and Indiana - curb inlet Drainage 2010 $10,000

13 Tri-Blenheim Parks Study Parks / Rec 2010 $45,000

14 Zona Rosa / Prospect North / Fairyland Debt Devt. Support 2010 $13.31 mil

15 Noble Park Security Lighting Parks / Rec 2010 $85,000

16 Swope Park Industrial District Drainage 2010 $5.1 mil

17 Swope Park Trails - Plan A Trails 2012 $250,000

18 80th St. & Montgall; Agnes, Belfontaine - culvert and pipes Drainage 2012 $320,000

19 Marlborough Park - shelter, tables, grills, lighting Parks / Rec 2012 $20,833

20 Marlborough Comm. Cntr. - more parking; lighting Parks / Rec 2012 $300,000

21 Troost Ave. (77th to 79th )- curbs, sidewalks, driveways Curb / Sidewalks 2010 $289,000

22 Blue River Channelization - Stage 3 Drainage 2010 $8.22 mil

23 Brush Creek Improvements Drainage 2011 $2.4 mil

24 Elmwood / Cleaver - Van Brunt / Linwood - bike trail Parks / Rec 2011 $250,000

25 63rd St. Master Plan - BRW Drive to State Line Curb / Sidewalks 2011 $60,000

26 Van Brunt Trail Design - 45th St. to Elmwood & Brush Creek Blvd Trails 2012 $200,000

TOTAL $34.74 mil


TRANSPORTATIONThe Swope area boasts a relatively complete transportation system: • The major street system is fully built out (see Major Street Plan discussion).

• Bruce R. Watkins Drive provides convenient access to the regional highway system.

• There is a dense, interconnected grid of local streets. As connectivity increases, travel distances decrease and route options increase, allowing more direct travel between destinations. This is of particular benefit to walkability.

• Most of the area has pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signals).

• Transit service/routes cover the entire area (including a MAX bus route on Troost) with high levels of bus ridership.

• There are significant off-street trails along Brush Creek and Town Fork Creek.

There are however, notable gaps in the transportation network and other improvements/enhancements that are needed:

• There is a “high need” for pedestrian infrastructure improvements generally in the southern and eastern portions of the area. Mitigation of pedestrian barriers (e.g. Bruce R. Watkins Drive) may also be warranted.

• None of the proposed bike routes (see Bike KC) in the area have been implemented

• There is a need to expand the regional trails (Brush Creek, Blue River) and provide neighborhood connections to these corridors.

• Potential rail transit along the Bruce R. Watkins Drive corridor may require additional pedestrian enhancements and land use controls.

• Improved access may be needed for some areas which are isolated by railroads or highways, or where additional street connections are otherwise needed.

• Various capacity and safety improvements to existing facilities are needed, which will be explored in more detail during the planning process.


Vehicular CirculationThe area has a diverse system of connected roadways, consisting of a dense grid of local and major streets. The area is well served by a network of park-ways and arterial streets. The Swope area also benefits from good regional access, with one regional highway running through the middle of the area (Bruce R. Watkins drive) and with convenient access to Interstate 435.

MAJOR STREET PLANAll of the streets on the major street network in the Swope area (see map below for proposed number of lanes and street typology) have been built. Major Streets in the Swope area include:

• The Paseo

• Prospect Ave,

• Cleveland (north of Gregory Blvd.)

• Swope Parkway

• Brush Creek Blvd.

• Blue Parkway

• 55th Street

• 63rd Street

The Major Street Plan

identifies the general

alignment and functional

classification of major

streets and highways in

Kansas City. The purpose

of the Plan is to guide

development of the

major street network and

to provide a mechanism

to preserve right-of-way

as development occurs.

• Gregory Blvd.

• Oldham Road

• Meyer Blvd.

• 75th Street (west of Bruce R. Watkins)

• 85th Street

• Hickman Mills Drive

• Troost Avenue

The Through Lanes Map in the Major Street Plan indicates a range of capacities from two to six lanes. Each of the typologies shown on the Street Typology map has a unique context and intent as described below:

ACTIVITY STREET/CORRIDOR Activity Street/Corridors typically include a variety of land uses, most notably retail-oriented high-intensity mixed-use. The intent is to cre-ate a reduced emphasis on automobile traffic and heightened pedestrian environment.

COMMERCE/MIXED-USE STREET Commerce/Mixed-Use Streets typically are high quality public spaces offering a variety of building types and land uses - particularly employ-ment oriented mixed-use – generating activity and diversity. The intent is to form a highly interconnected network (grid), dispersing “through” traffic and providing convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.


TRANSPORTATION


THOROUGHFARE Thoroughfares are typically in commercial areas with many small strip centers and pad sites with buildings typically set back behind front parking lots. Emphasis is placed on vehicular mobility and “through” or “destination” traffic.

ESTABLISHED ARTERIAL Established arterials are typically in built-up urban settings with rights-of-way constrained by established development. The intent is to retain the existing cross-section.

LOCAL LINK Local Links connect neighborhoods and services. The intent is to serve residential traffic to and from destinations, encourage walkability and mul-timodal transportation, and carry moderate levels of traffic in a way that is compatible with bicycle and foot traffic.

BOULEVARD Boulevards serve a variety of land uses and are generally characterized by rolling topography and stately homes, apartments, and commercial cen-ters. Boulevard rights-of-way tend to be wide and formally landscaped. The intent is to provide a pleasant drive through a variety of land uses; an environment where vehicles and pedestrians can coexist.

PARKWAY Parkways typically connect the City’s parks. They are less formal in align-ment, following natural terrain. The intent is to retain a pastoral quality even while winding through developed areas. There are several segments in the Major Street Plan named “Parkway” that have a Boulevard typology and cross-section.

HISTORIC /ESTABLISHED BOULEVARD / PARKWAY Historic Boulevards and Parkways are from the original Kessler system. Established Boulevards and Parkways are already built to previous stan-dards. The intent is to retain the existing cross-section.


TRANSPORTATION


REGIONAL ROADWAY ISSUESThe Swope area enjoys good access to the regional highway system with Bruce R. Watkins Drive running through the center of the area. Other regional linkages are in close proximity, including Interstate 435 and 350 Hwy. These allow Swope residents to reach regional destinations for em-ployment shopping and entertainment, and allow people from the region to easily reach the Swope area.

Bruce R. Watkins Drive may also serve as a catalyst for new development, particularly at major intersections and mixed-use centers as recommended by the FOCUS Urban Core Plan (Brush Creek, 55th Street, 59th Street, 63rd Street and 75th Street).

While Bruce R. Watkins Drive creates good access to/from the area it also creates a barrier to pedestrians and limits local circulation patterns be-cause of the wide right-of-way, limited access, and high speed of traffic. The roadway also impacts Swope neighborhoods with increased noise and air pollution.

BRUCE R. WATKINS DRIVEThe Missouri State Highway Department in 1964 tentatively approved the location of the Bruce R. Watkins Roadway, first known as the South Mid-town Freeway. The State began land acquisition in late 1968. A 1973 class action lawsuit halted construction of the roadway until 1985. Between 1968 and 1978, 1,745 families were relocated from the South Midtown Freeway corridor, most of them from the 3rd and 5th Districts.

The settlement of the lawsuit included an enhanced design to make Bruce R. Watkins Drive more like a boulevard and less like a freeway, with enhancements to bridge design and landscaping the full length of the roadway.

Since the opening of the roadway, there has been a substantial shift in traffic patterns to the Down-town loop. Traffic has shifted away from arterials like Prospect Avenue, which may affect the future commercial development of the corridor. In the future, MoDOT will conduct a study to analyze the resulting changes in traffic volumes and times.

Pedestrian path across the Bruce R. Watkins Drive median


TRANSPORTATIONTransitPUBLIC TRANSITThe planning area is somewhat dependent on and well served by public transit and alternative forms of transportation. The area has some of the highest bus ridership and best bus service in the city, with almost all areas within 1/4 mile of a bus stop and many routes with frequent service (see map). In all, more than 12 bus routes provide service to and from the plan-ning area.

RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDORThe Major Street Plan designates a Special Purpose Rapid Transit Corridor along Bruce R. Watkins Drive. This allows the City to reserve right-of-way for future fixed guideway transit.

SMART MOVESSmart Moves is metropolitan Kansas City’s vision for expanded and enhanced regional transit. The plan was developed my Mid America Regional Council in collaboration with local cities, residents and local transit providers. In addition to the local transit service already in place, the Smart Moves plan proposes the following for the Swope area:

Jackson and Cass Counties with Major Local Transit Corridors


TRANSPORTATIONTROOST AVENUE - MAJOR FIXED ROUTEThe corridor, based in part upon an old trol-ley line alignment, connects downtown to the General Services Administration/Honeywell complex and the Three Trails redevelopment area. The corridor has high-level bus service, at present, and was upgraded further in 2009 with the beginning of MAX bus rapid transit service in the corridor.

US 71 - COMMUTER SERVICE (SEE COMMUTER RAIL ALSO)This corridor stretches from midtown Kansas City, Mo., to Cass County on the south side of the region. In general, there may be opportunities to provide commuter services along the corridor within the right of way of the existing expressway. The importance of this corridor indicated that service could be elevated from high-level bus to a corridor that could support rail in the future.

PROSPECT AVENUE - MAJOR FIXED ROUTEThe Prospect Corridor has long been an important transit corridor. The corridor connects dense residential neighborhoods on the eastern side of Kansas City, Mo. This corridor is identified for future higher-intensity bus service along the length of the corridor.

COMMUTER RAIL - US 71 CORRIDOR The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal High-way Administration (FHWA) have awarded Jackson County a $652,200 competitive federal grant to study the US 71 Hwy transportation cor-ridor in south Kansas City. A portion of this corridor is within the Swope Area. The grant funds will be used to conduct a transportation alternative analysis in the U.S. 71 Highway commuter corridor including Kansas City and Grandview in Jackson County and Raymore and Belton in Cass Coun-ty. This alternative analysis will (among other options) will evaluate the potential for commuter rail. The “Alternatives Analysis” is a necessary step in the process of applying for and receiving federal transportation dollars which lead to the construction of new transit systems. The study will be integrated with other commuter corridor alternatives analyses underway in Jackson County and downtown Kansas City, Mo.


Trails and Bike RoutesTRAILS KC PLANThe Trails KC Plan guides the development and maintenance of a citywide trails system for pedestrian, bicyclist and equestrian use. The plan defines the major corridors that will provide basic connections within the city and to a larger regional system. The system will serve as both recreation corridors and alternative transportation corridors. The following map illustrates existing and proposed trails in the Swope area. There are two Citywide Trails (Brush Creek and Blue River) and one neighborhood con-nector trail (Town Fork Creek Trail) in the Swope area.

BIKE ROUTES The Major Street Plan references the Bike KC Plan as a phased 600-mile network of on-street bicycle routes. This will enable the City to incremen-tally obtain additional right-of-way to allow future development of bicycle lanes. There are several bike routes designated in the Swope area (see Bike Routes and Trails Map below).

WalkabilityOverall, walkability in the Swope area is relatively good. Walking demand is high and pedestrian infrastructure is generally complete for much of the area (see green areas on Walking Demand map). However there are some areas where the need for pedestrian infrastructure is high (see red areas). These are areas where walking demand is high and pedestrian facilities are lacking.

The Kansas City Walkability Plan establishes five measures to evaluate the pedestrian system which are described below along with a general evalua-tion of the Swope area for each.

DIRECTNESS: DOES THE NETWORK PROVIDE THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE ROUTE? The ideal pedestrian network is the grid system, since curvilinear street patterns add additional distance to the potential trip. The grid street pattern and accompanying sidewalls in Swope generally provide good di-rectness, with the exception of the “high need” areas (see map) where no sidewalks are present.

TRANSPORTATION


CONTINUITY: IS THE NETWORK FREE FROM GAPS AND BARRIERS? Continuity in the western portion of Swope is generally good. However gaps in the sidewalk network do exist, particularly in the eastern and southern portion of the area. Physical barriers such as Bruce R. Watkins Drive also reduce continuity.

STREET CROSSINGS: CAN THE PEDESTRIAN SAFELY CROSS STREETS? Major arterial roadways can significantly impact a pedestrian’s safety in crossing a street. Although the urban core has more of these types of streets, they tend to be narrower widths with lower traffic and speeds than similarly designated streets in outlying suburban areas. However, street crossings are still a significant issue in Swope, particularly on streets like 63rd Street, Blue Parkway, and Bruce R. Watkins Drive.• Pedestrian crossing of Bruce R. Watkins Drive in particular is a significant

issue. Many of the pedestrian crosswalks are in at-grade intersections. Pedestrian paths that have been worn across the BRW median are indicative of the volume of pedestrian crossing the roadway at unsafe locations (these crossings occur wherever there is a break in the highway fence)

VISUAL INTEREST AND AMENITY – IS THE ENVIRONMENT ATTRACTIVE AND COMFORTABLE? This generally refers to the quality of the streetscape and is difficult to assess for an area this large. There are many examples of attractive and comfortable streetscapes in Swope including The Paseo, Meyer Blvd., Swope Pkwy./Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd. Other areas with vacant or dilapidated buildings, trash, no shade trees or poor lighting detract from visual interest. The area plan should identify and prioritize these areas for improvement.

SECURITY – IS THE ENVIRONMENT SECURE AND WELL LIGHTED WITH GOOD LINE OF SIGHT TO SEE THE PEDESTRIAN? Pedestrian security (as measured by number of crimes per person) is a significant issue in many parts of the Swope area.

TRANSPORTATION


Means of Transportation to WorkWhile the majority of area residents drive alone to work, they are also more likely to use alternative modes of transportation for their commute than residents in the city as a whole. Area residents are almost three times more likely to ride transit to work than the citywide average.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 American Community Survey


PLANNING ISSUESsummary

So, what does all this mean? Through analysis of the data discussed in the previous chapters as well as input provided by area stakeholders, the following preliminary planning issues have been identified. While additional issues will almost certainly arise, these planning issues serve as an initial list of topics to be explored throughout the planning process.

Key Land Use and Development Issues• Provide strategies to address vacant/under utilized properties.

• Provide measures to ensure compatible development within each unique neigh-borhood. Minimize potential conflicts between different types of land use.

• Recognize and delineate established functional land use areas within the Swope area (residential, industrial, business, public) and create appropriate policies to ensure compatible development.

• Address discrepancies between current zoning and established land use patterns. Nearly 2/3 of area is zoned for multi-family residential, while multi-family uses only account for only 3% of the area.

• Identify potential applications of new zoning tools in the code (e.g. Historic Overlay and Pedestrian Overlay).

• Identify strategies to encourage new development activity which build on areas of strength. Identify sites which present development opportunities and develop strategies to facilitate redevelopment.

~ Integrate strategies for the redevelopment of the 63rd and Prospect area.~ Identify other key redevelopment sites and identify redevelopment strategies.

• There is a need to explore strategies to enhance “public spaces” (roads, parks, etc), which account for 34% of the area.

• Provide strategies to revitalize struggling commercial corridors. Determine areas which may no longer be viable for retail uses and identify future sus-tainable land use patterns.

• Examine large land owners in the area like the City and Land Trust of Jackson County and develop strategies and recommendations to guide the future use of those properties.

• Examine the performance of economic incentive tools that have been applied in the area. Integrate recent initiatives, such as New Tools, and develop strategies for effective economic and community development.

• Explore ways to integrate environmental and “green” elements into new development.

• Identify strategies and guidelines to integrate future development with transit, walking and biking.

• Examine previous plans and identify those elements that are important and relevant to be integrated into the Swope Area Plan.

• Integrate strategies for the reuse of vacant/recently closed school buildings.


Key Housing and Demographic Issues• Identify strategies to invest in people (social capital) to develop individuals

who are healthy, productive, caring and civil.

• Provide strategies to increase employment opportunities within the area, particularly for Swope area residents.

• Provide strategies to address high levels of “distress” in the area and reverse four consecutive decades of housing and population loss.

• Explore strategies to reverse increasing vacancies and reduced housing values caused by recent high foreclosure rates.

• Explore strategies to ensure compatible reuses of recently closed schools and explore strategies for viable and improved public education.

• Explore strategies to improve public safety and examine impacts of depopu-lation on police service delivery.

• Identify strategies to improve educational attainment and job preparedness of area residents.

• Identify areas for strategic and targeted investments in housing. Explore strategies to improve housing conditions and strategies to address the gen-eral maintenance needs of the areas aging homes.

~ Coordinate with ongoing initiatives such as Green Impact Zone and the Target Green/Middle Blue Basin area.

• Identify areas for new housing by developing vacant land and/or redevel-opment or infill within vacant and underutilized areas. Identify areas with high revitalization potential (population/housing increases, stable housing values, etc.) in order to build on areas of strength.

• Promote a healthy mix of owner and renter occupied units and support home ownership throughout the area.

• Establish metrics for to track future progress and set future goals.


PLANNING ISSUESsummary

Key Infrastructure Issues• Explore policies and guidelines for the application of “green” solutions and

Best Management Practices (BMPs) in new infrastructure projects and new development.

• Need to explore ways to incorporate green solutions, particularly to help manage stormwater and improve air/water quality.

• Explore the potential impacts of anticipated large scale public improvements associated with the Overflow Control Program.

~ Expand targeting/layering of resources to new as the green infrastructure is implemented in new basins in the Middle Blue watershed.

~ Integrate land use and infrastructure strategies and policies that support the Town Fork Creek Watershed Study.

• Consider issues related to aging infrastructure and identify strategies to ad-dress ongoing maintenance.

• While most of the area is well served by infrastructure (sewers, water, etc..), there is a need to examine areas without adequate infrastructure (i.e. under-sized water mains)

• Examine implications of combined sewers to redevelopment

• Continued coordination with Wet Weather Solutions and KCONE processes. Consider effects of large scale capital improvements to address Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO’s) and look for opportunities to coordinate multiple projects (avoid digging same hole twice)

• Indentify a framework for prioritizing and coordinating planned improve-ments in the area.


Key Transportation Issues• Examine the planning implications of the transit improvements recom-

mended in Smart Moves regional transit plan. Explore implications of proposed “rapid transit corridors”.

~ Integrate transit strategies with ongoing planning for south 71 Hwy Corridor.

• Identify strategies to better coordinate land use planning with transportation.

• Explore implications of shifts in traffic patterns as a result of the opening of Bruce R Watkins Drive (traffic shifted away from commercial corridors like Prospect Avenue).

• Identify strategies to address pedestrian barriers created by highways and railroad tracks (particularly pedestrian crossings of Bruce R. Watkins Drive).

• Examine designated bike routes and develop strategies and prioritization framework to implement the proposed system.

• Indentify strategies which maximize the benefits of regional roadways ~ Identify potential development opportunities at key highway access points

along Bruce R. Watkins Drive.

• Explore strategies to improve Walkability, particularly in”high need” areas. ~ Identify areas where a higher level of service should be required (e.g. new

“Pedestrian Zones”)

• Plan for a coordinated system of on and off street bike routes and multi-use trails (coordinate with Trails KC). Identify opportunities and strategies to connect area neighborhoods to Trails KC system.

• Explore strategies to improve street connections and access where needed.~ Explore strategies to improve access to area business parks and neighbor-

hoods where needed

• Examine the street network, identify and prioritize needed improvements and explore ways to implement planned street improvements and roadway projects.

• Explore strategies to create complete streets which accommodate all modes of transit.

~ Identify candidates for traffic calming and road diets.

• Examine existing bus service and examine implications of new or expanded bus rapid transit (MAX) service and impacts of reductions in service.

~ Make recommendations for future bus service enhancements.

Public Realm/Urban Design Issues• Explore strategies to reinforce and enhance area and neighborhood identity.

• Identify nodes and districts within the Plan Area that have a special or unique character and develop strategies to protect/enhance that character.

• Explore strategies to enhance and reinforce the Plan Area’s edges and impor-tant gateways.

• Explore strategies to enhance image streets and public spaces

data book › api › file_data › asz3mhlfhvrnk7vego5gaz7o… · • swope park, including the...

Documents