HomeMy WebLinkAbout1861 i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Wash-
ington, adopting by reference the Comprehensive
Park and Recreation System Plan for the Kent
Park Planning Area, dated December 25, 1972,
providing for future amendments to the Plan
and providing for filing of copies of the Plan
with the Kent City Clerk.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DO
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ' There is hereby adopted by reference as if
fully set forth herein that certain plan known as the Comprehen-
sive Park-and Recreation System Plan for the Kent Park Planning
Area dated, December 25, 1972.
Section 2. Future amendments to or changes of the Plan
may be made .by motion of the City Council at any Regular or Spe-
cial City -Council Meeting.
Section 3. ' 'This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication,
as required by law and upon the filing of three (3) copies there-
of with the Kent City Clerk.
ISABEL HOGAN, MAY
ATTEST
MARIE JENSEN, qITj CLERK
PROVED AS TO FORM:
DON LD E. MIRK, CITY ATTORNEY
-1-
PASSED the 1 day of April, 1974.
APPROVED the day of April, 1974 .
PUBLISHED the °) day of April, 1974.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. 1 25 (oI , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE ENSEN, ITY CL
-2-
I
r,
t
COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM PLAN
F .
for the
KENT PARK PLANNING AREA
Prepared for the
City of Kent Parks and Recreation Department
Prepared by
ORB
Architects-Planners-Engineers
Suite 510, Evergreen Building
Renton, Washington 98055
Presented December 25, � 972 `
r
4130 ME a � ARCH/TECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
Mayor Isabel Hogan
Kent City Council Peter Baffaro
Bill Elliott
Charles Martell
Jeanne Masters
Gary Just
Robert Kitto
James Jackson
Kent Park Board John Gretz, Chairman
Berne Biteman, Secretary
John Fournier, Jr. , Member
City Administrator Joseph Street
Director of Parks and Recreation Barney Wilson
ii
ORS 0
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
E
v °
r,
ORB PROJECT TEAM
r °
Director Robert Bignold
Planner Richard Huggins
r Architect Roger Richert
Landscape Architect John Strander
e
Engineer William Holmberg
` Geologist Charles Mayes
i
Graphics David Probart
Clerical Pamela Reed
JoAnn Bryant
iii
L :: R a���o�o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
o
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ORB gratefully acknowledges the enthusiastic support we received in the preparation
of this report. Wherever we went, we were warmly greeted by the citizens of the
Kent Park Planning Area and neighboring communities; public and private organ-
izations and agencies too, were generous with time and information. Below is a
listing of those who have aided the Kent community in the preparation of this plan.
While the contribution of some may have been small and others enormous, all gave -
selflessly. We apologize to any we may have inadvertently omitted.
INDIVIDUALS
Jack Johnson Nate Hale
Roger Stewart Paul Lewan
Twila Martin Paul Shirley
Bonnie Lafrenz Grant Sharpe
Orville McCartney Fay Pullen
Glenice Pritchard Max Fulner
Dave Sims Clarence Shoff
Larry Foster Margaret Finley
Dina Morgan Charles Anderson
Kathy Davidson Marilyn Edmunson
Mindy Meyer Norman Bliss
Walter Franklin Mike Sweeney
Cindy Pramer Gil Peterson
Bill Hanson Byron Haley
George Abe Lloyd Baisinger
Craig Gillespie Paul Shirley
Dennis Gillespie Herb Young
Steve Taketa Brad Gillespie
Eldon Edmunson Rusty RRathfelder
George Tersiisky Paul Morely
Cecelia Chelette Hazel Wolf
Brock Evans Martin Bondee
Zella Schultz George Gilstrap
Jack Allison Bob Jacobs
Jack Kruckenberg Evelyn Peaslee
Jim Toysen Ed Reiten
Ken Gosling Eleanor Stopps
Mike Smith John Fournier, Sr.
Paul Morely Jim De Shazo
Glen Sherwood Doug Bellingham
ORS iv
.I G N 0 L o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS o C4
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
Green River Community College, Departments of Psychology and Recreation
Renton High School
Soil Conservation Service
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
Audubon Society
University of Washington College of Forest Resources
King County Planning Department
Washington State Fish and Game Department
Washington State Parks Department
King County Parks Department
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Kent Senior Citizens
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Kent School District 415
Kent Park and Recreation Department
Kent Planning Department
Kent Engineering Department
White River Valley Historical Society
E
R S V �_
O O
oo« , a,�„ono ARCHITECTS
i
CONTENTS
Section Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
ILLUSTRATIONS. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . xii -
TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 1-1
Planning Goals .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. 1-1
Scope of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1-2
Community Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 1-4
2 KENT AREA BACKGROUND AND RESOURCE INVENTORY . . . 2-1
History . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . 2-1
Early Heritage . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2-1
Agricultural Development . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. 2-2
Early Transportation, Industry, and Business . . . . . . ... . . 2-2
Leisure Activities and Holidays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 2-3
Development of the Kent Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 2-5
Physical Geography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 2-8
_ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . 2-8
Topography and Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2-8
Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 2-9
Climate.. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2-11
Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . 2-12
Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2-13
General . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . 2-13
Present Wildlife Status in the Kent Area. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 2-14
Terrestial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 2-14
Birds. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2-14
Fish . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2-16
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2-16
Population. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 2-16
Age. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
Education . ... . . .. . .. . . . .. . ..... ... .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . 2-26
Inventory of Public-Owned Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 2-28 ._
OR $ ViA44.
s 0 N A I_H E w T .I.N.I. ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
CONTENTS
Section Page
3 RECREATION PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
Historical Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
The Search for Meaningful Park & Recreation Standards . . . . . 3-2
Professional Recreator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Kent Area Recreation Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-5
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-6
Income. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
` Leisure Time . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-8
Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Quantified Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Recreation Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-15
Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
State Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — . — . . . . . . . 3-17
Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — . . . 3-17
King County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
Kent. . . . . . . — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 3-18
Private Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . — . . . . . . . — . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Kent Open Space Standards . . . . . . . . . . — . — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-18
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Establishment of the Planning Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-20
Description of Basic Space Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
User Oriented Areas. . . . . . . . . . o . . . . o . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . oo . 3-21
Neighborhood Recreation Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-21
Community Recreation Center . . . . . . . . . . . . — o o o . . . . 3-22
Major Urban Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Urban Trail System. .. . . . . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . o . . . . . o . . . 3-24
Golf Course Recreation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
Major Spectator Sports Areas (Stadium or Coliseum). 3-25
Field Sports Practice Areas 3-26
User and Conservation Oriented Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Boating Areas. . . . . — . 3-26
Freshwater Swimming Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
BeachArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Swimming Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Realization of Planning Goals. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
O
vii
3M
B 0
0 L 0 A,C E a. .I G N 0 L o ARCHITECTS PLANNERS,ENGINEERS
CONTENTS
Section Page
4 COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM PLAN 4-1
Introduction. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . 4-1
The Kent Open Space Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Neighborhood Park and Recreation Facilities. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-6 -
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-6
Determination of Neighborhood Planning Areas . .. . . . . . . 4-6
Acquisition and Development of Neighborhood Areas . . . . 4-8
Small Neighborhood Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Medium Neighborhood Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Large Neighborhood Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4-9
Evaluation of Neighborhood Facilities. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
Neighborhood Planning Area A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4-12
Neighborhood Planning Area B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
Neighborhood Planning Area C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
Neighborhood Planning Area D. . . . . . . . • . . . . , , , 4-14
Neighborhood Planning Area E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
Neighborhood Planning Area F .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-15
Neighborhood Planning Area G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
Neighborhood Planning Area H. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 4-16
Neighborhood Planning Area I .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . 4-17
Neighborhood Planning Area J . . . . . , ,. . 4-17
Neighborhood Planning Area K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
- Neighborhood Planning Area L. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-18
Neighborhood Planning Area M. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-19
Neighborhood Planning Area N.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4_19
Neighborhood Planning Area 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20
Neighborhood Planning Area P.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21
Neighborhood Planning Area Q .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 4-22
Neighborhood Planning Area R.. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
Neighborhood Planning Area S 4-23
Community Park and Recreation Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
Introduction. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 4-24
Determination of Community Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . .. 4-24
Community Center Concept. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . o . .. 0 . . .. . 4-24
Acquisition and Development of Community Centers. . . . . 4-25
Siting Criteria. . .:_. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4-25
Design Criteria. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26
Evaluation of Community Facilities. . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . 4-27
West Hill Community Planning Area. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4-28
Valley and Scenic Hill Community Planning Area. . 4-28 —
East Hill Community Planning Area. . . .. . .. . . . .. • 4-29
Acquisition and Development Priorities, . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
i
f
I
viii j
ORS
A C I E.* �o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
CONTENTS
Section Page
4 Major Urban Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30
Specific Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-30
Riverfront Park System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31
Introduction. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31
State Position on Shorelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4-31
County Position on Shorelines . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
F City Position on Shorelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
Present Status of the River and Environs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
Drainage and Flood Control . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
Basic Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34
Dikes and the Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35 '
1
If the Levees Are Not Raised. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 4-35
If the Levees Are Raised. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-36
Specific Recommendations. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36
Implementation Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36
Linear Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4-37
Trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37
Riverlevel Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
Interpretive Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
Funding the Riverfront Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
Use of Donated Land As City's Matching Share . . . 4-39
Acquisition Involving Compatible, Multiple Uses. . . 4-39
Encouragement of State Agencies to Participate . . . 4-39
National Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39
Zoning Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-39
Master Plan for the Development of the Green River . . . 4-39
Trail System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41
Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43
Implementation Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Existing Rights-of-Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Acquisition of Rights-of-Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Use of Rights-of-Way. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Zoning of Subdivision Regulation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-44
Park Land or Trail System Implementation by Zoning
and Subdivision Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 4-45
Basic Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
Implementation Committee. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49
Park Dedication Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-50
ix ,-.
o s 0 ,
s 0 1 1 1 C„E A, 5 1 G„0 E o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS ENGINEERS
CONTENTS
ection Page
4 Golf Course Recreation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50
Specific Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50
Spectator Sports Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50
Field Sports Practice Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50 -
River Access and Boating Areas . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-51
Freshwater Swimming Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-51
Specific Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52
Senior Citizens Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
Steep Slope Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
Kent School and Park Agency Cooperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54
JointUse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54
Joint Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55
Specific Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
Guideline No. 1. . 4-56
Guideline No. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
Guideline No. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
Guideline No. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
Park and Recreation Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-57
History. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-57
PresentStatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-58
. Recommendations for the Board of Park
Commissioners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59
Recommendations for the Park and Recreation
Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60
The Kent Park and Recreation Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61
What is Recreation. . . . . . . . . .
Why Provide Public-Sponsored Recreation . . , . . . , . 4-62
Which Types of Recreation Should our Community
Sponsor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62
What are the Department's Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62
What are our Objectives. . 4-63
What are the Policies . . . . .. ... .. .. . .. . . . . .. ... . . 4-63
Policy Manual. . . . .. . . . .. . .0 . . . .. . .. ... .. ..... . . . . .. . . . .. 4-64
5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5-1
Introduction... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. 5-1
State Matching Funds . . . . . .. . .. . . . ... . . .. . .... . .. . .. . . . . . 5_2
Marine Recreation Act of 1964.. .. . .. ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. 5-2 --
Referendums 18 and 28 - Outdoor Recreation Bond
Issues.. ...... . . . .. . . . . .. ....... 5-2
x
ORB �0
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
CONTENTS
! Section
Page
5 Federal Matching Funds . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . 5-2
r Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. . . . . . ... . 5-2
Open Space Program (HUD) . . . ... . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . 5-3
Urban Beautification and Improvement . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 5-4
r , Rivers and Harbors . . . . . . 5-4
. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . ..
Historic Preservation Grants. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . 5-4
Public Land for Recreation, Public Purposes and
Historic Monuments .. . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . .. .. . . 5-5
Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property. . . . .. . . . . . 5-5
Capital Improvement Program. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5-6
6
W
xi O
O A ��EA, . �•o�o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2-1 Existing Neighborhood Planning Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
2-2 Future Neighborhood Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18 -
2-3 Existing Public Owned Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-54
4-1 Existing Park and School Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4-2 Kent Park System Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40
4-3 Typical Section of Separated Multiple Use Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43
4-4 Example of Subdivision Connector Trail Progression. . . . . . . . . . 4-46
O 3 xii
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
i
y
TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Existing Neighborhood Population, Households, and
Survey Sample. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
2-2 Existing Neighborhood Population, and Saturation
Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
4
2-3 Future Neighborhood Population and Saturation
i ,
Distribution . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
E
2-4 Existing Neighborhood Population Age Group
Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
2-5 Kent Area Family Income Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
2-6 1970 U.S. Census of Kent, King County, and
Washington State Family Incomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
t
2-7 Kent Area Head of Household Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
1
2-8 Index to Table 2-9, Inventory of Public-Owned Lands for
t the Kent Park Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
II 2-9 Inventory of Public-Owned Lands for the Kent Park
6 . Planning Area. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
f
3-1 Summary of Kent Area Recreation Survey Totals . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3-2 Recreation Demand Per Capita Occasions Per Thirty Day
` Period by Neighborhood and Kent Park Planning
Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3-3 Kent Park Planning Area Recreation Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
3-4 Recreation Responsibility for the Acquisition and Develop-
ment of the Various Area Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
3-5 State Guideline Standards vs. Recommended Kent
Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
� w
xiii ,-;
O R. s O
ILso„ p,�„E„, 81G„0Lo ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENG/NEERS
TABLES
Table Page
4-1 Requirements for Park and Recreation
Facilities in the Kent Park Planning Area. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . 4-5
4-2 Neighborhood Park and Recreation Land
Acquisition and Development Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
4-3 Trail Construction Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
4-4 Trail Activity Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4-43
4-5 Projected Minimum Trail Mileage. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . 4-48
4-6 1971 Population by Age and Sex
Group in the Kent Park Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-65
5-1 Kent Park Planning Area Six-Year Capital
Improvement Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
xiv
OR80ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENG/NEERS
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Since the first white man settled in the Green River Valley over 100 years ago,
the area has changed from a quiet farming community to a busy suburban and industrial
center. In recent years the City's population has grown at an ever increasing rate;
Kent's population has more than doubled since 1960 and the Kent Park Planning Area
has grown at an even faster rate. By 1990, less than twenty years hence, the
Park Planning Area is expected to double again to a total of some 81,000 people.
The probability of the population forecasts exceeding those projected in this report
are simply too great to ignore. Unlike other features of the Kent Park Planning Area
suitable for park and recreation property are a fixed asset--once developed they are
gone forever. Large stands of native pine and natural growth take from fifty to
one hundred and fifty years to replace. Thus the recommendations of this report have
set high standards for the early acquisition of such land. If in the future these standards
` are found to be too high, they can be modified downward to meet the actual growth
encountered; however it will be impossible to raise them after development has taken
place.
PLANNING GOALS
Unlike many communities in the Puget Sound Area, the City of Kent has the potential
for developing a truly comprehensive park and recreational system plan. If implemented
well in advance of urbanization, such a plan can provide a legacy of open space for
the City's future generations at a price it can afford to pay.
The Park Board and the Park and Recreation Director, cognizant of the community's
f future open space needs, retained ORB, Architects-Planners-Engineers, to assist
them in the preparation of this comprehensive plan. They felt that such a plan would
accomplish the following objectives:
o ensure maximum benefit for each dollar spent for administration, personnel,
program activities, and construction;
o avoid unrelated planning by unqualified groups;
ti
o acquaint the community with the program and with the need for additional services,
areas, and facilities;
o avoid duplication and overlapping of services, areas, and facilities;
o facilitate preparation of construction plans and ensure their adequacy;
1-1
O
0Ls0„ „ ,C„Ea, III„0EP ARCH/TECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
o expedite action on construction when labor, materials, and funds are available;
o make certain each development is a component part of an overall integrated plan;
o serve as a guide for zoning appropriate sites for parks, parkways, and recreation
areas;
o attract and hold industry and the workers with the skills needed to maintain it;
o ensure the proper balance between man and nature during periods of rapid
community growth;
o develop specific policies regarding the community's leisure activities.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The planning of a comprehensive park and recreation system is a difficult and complex
task as the cultural, educational and recreational interests of the Kent community
involve numerous individuals and community groups. In addition, the Park and
Recreation Department faces a number of unique operational problems including first
cost capital improvements, scheduling of facilities, distribution of supplies and
supervision of activities as well as maintenance of grounds and facilities and endless
meetings with community and neighborhood groups. ORB has attempted to consider
all of the above factors in the development of this plan. In addition we have talked
with a number of interested local, state and federal agencies to assure coordinated
park and recreation planning.
The Kent Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan presented in this report
-. is an evaluation of your community's leisure needs versus its available resources; it is
a specific plan of action to meet your needs.
To ensure that the System Plan would provide for a proper balance between man and
nature, we have based it on a comprehensive study of the area's population distribution
and growth, neighborhood patterns, transportation, schools, existing public recreation
programs and facilities, private and quasi-public recreation, the community's
physiographic and ecologic resources, finances, and your demand for leisure activities.
This Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan will provide guidance to the
City of Kent:
o in the orderly development of existing areas, =
- i
o in the selection and development of new areas and facilities to meet existing
and future needs;
1-2
O R B
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
F
o for a comprehensive program to serve all age groups, all hours of the day,
and all seasons of the year with indoor and outdoor recreation provisions;
t ,
o to ensure the maximum functional use of each recreation area and facility;
o as practical plan for immediate and long-range action with respect to administra-
tion, program, acquisition, facilities, and finances.
The ORB comprehensive system plan presented in this report includes the following
information:
o Tables showing population composition, distribution, density, and trends that
affect recreation planning;
o An inventory of existing recreation areas and facilities - public, quasi-public,
and private;
r
o An analysis of recreation demand to establish recommended standards for future
development;
r
o An inventory of existing recreation programs and activities - public, quasi-public,
and private;
t
o Recommended standards for parks, playfields, playgrounds, playlots, community
r
centers, athletic fields;
o An evaluation of cooperation, programming, and coordination that exists among
the various agencies serving the leisure demands of the community;
o Specific, detailed recommendations for the development of existing and proposed
areas and facilities to adequately meet present and future recreation needs;
o Maps of the city showing the location of public owned areas, areas used for public
recreation, and areas having potential recreation value;
o Maps showing recommended or proposed park and recreation facilities;
o Specific, detailed recommendations for improving the administration, operation,
` and program activities to provide most effectively for the interests and needs
of all groups;
' o A recommended plan for securing adequate finances.
1-3
oRS
O
o I s o„ q,C„E a, ARCHITECTS PLANNERS ENGINEERS
ORB has attempted to recommend a recreation plan which is unique to the needs of
the people of Kent and the available recreation resources. We trust that the Park and
Recreation Department and the people of Kent can find an identity in our recommenda-
tions and will support the implementation effort which will be required to realize the
City's full recreational potential. Above all, we have attempted to tailor your first
comprehensive park plan to both the mood and the pocketbook of the community. As
the Park Board implements the recommendations of this report, the enthusiasms and
the interest of the community for park and recreation activities will grow and with it will grow the support for your future acquisition and development program.
In a sense this report is a primer for the development of a Comprehensive Park and
Recreation System. The development of such a system must of necessity be
accomplished in a series of small steps or phases. The plan is an instrument
designed to focus all development and acquisition activity toward a coordinated goal.
Once the basic elements of this study have been implemented, a more sophisticated
and detailed plan can be prepared to assist in the future park and recreation effort.
In fact, the basic information contained in this report should be enlarged upon by
the Park and Recreation Director at any time the need for a more detailed plan
becomes apparent.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Our planning effort has involved many people in your community and, as a result,
many of our recommendations are already being implemented. The Park Board
should provide constant surveillance to these endeavors to assure that they are fully
realized.
Those recommendations on which action has not been taken will require that the Board
establish new programs and new policies. They will require that special interest
groups be organized to assist in the acquisition and development of special interest
facilities, i.e. saddle clubs assisting in the acquisition and development of equestrian
trails and river floaters and fishermen assisting in the acquisition and development
of the River Front Park System. Only by enlisting the help of such organizations
and individuals can the Board hope to implement this plan.
Your Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan may be used to enlist support
for its implementation in the following ways:
o Adequate publicity should be given to the accomplishment of each objective of
the Plan to ensure continuing public interest.
o The Plan and each major recommendation should become the subject of feature
stories for local and state newspapers.
1-4
O R3M ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
o The Plan will provide extensive material for use by the Department of Parks
and Recreation in all public relations activities.
o Copies of the Plan can be used extensively by the Chamber of Commerce as the
j" official guide for the recreation development and expansion program.
I o Maps and layout plans of individual areas can be reproduced on 35mm color
(� slides for illustrated presentations.
t o Appropriate sections of the Plan can be exhibited at strategic public locations,
such as the City Hall, store windows, and theatre and restaurant lobbies.
o Scale models of key areas prepared as school projects can be exhibited at the
C •
same localities.
o The Plan can be the subject of discussion at civic club meetings.
o The Plan can provide source material for special radio and panel programs.
o Copies of the Plan should be widely distributed to all interested agencies and
individuals.
o The Plan will assist the community in obtaining state and federal funding
assistance.
t .
1-5
ORs O
o so„ .,�„I .I ., „o o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
Section 2
KENT AREA BACKGROUND AND RESOURCE INVENTORY
HISTORY*
Early Heritage
r '
k The earliest known inhabitants of the Puvet Sound area were the American Indians.
Archaeological investigations indicate that there may have been Indians inhabiting the area
as early as 6000 B. C. and the Indian way of life - hunting, fishing, and food gathering -
persisted through the period of European exploration and the fur trade into the 18501s.
The decades of the 1840's and 1850's saw the greatest influx of white settlers; they arrived
_r by wagon train and sailing ship to settle in the fertile valleys, such as that of the Green
River.
Gradually, the Indian tribes' dislocation and their movement into reservations brought
about the disruption of their culture. Tension between the Indians and the settlers grew,
resulting in a rash of Indian wars and massacres in the late 18501s. Several encounters
occurred in the Green River Valley, but with the building of stockades for protection,
the white men's settlements became more secure and more permanent, and small towns
began to grow.
The original name of the town which developed along the banks of the Green River
was Titusville, after James H. Titus who marked the early boundaries. In 1890, the
town of Kent was incorporated, and the first Kent City Council met on August 4 of that
year at 10 a.m. in the Real Estate office of Will J. Shinn. The first mayor of the new
town was A.A. Van De Vanter. The townsite area was about one square mile, including
the main business district.
The early history of the area which came to be known as Kent was greatly influenced
r by the presence of the Green River. Most of the early homesteads and settlements were
located along the river giving the people access to transportation to the north and south
and providing communication with other areas. Until 1867, there were practically no
homesteads located away from the riverbank, and not until about 1875 did people really
begin to settle areas back from the river. In those days, the river was the road.
The river was also a source of food. Land along the sides of the river was well
protected with brush and trees which gave shelter to birds and small animals. The most
common trees found along the river were cedar, cottonwood, ash, willow and occasional
firs. Wood ducks would nest in the holes of cottonwood trees.
The rivers and creeks were full of trout and there were good fishing holes in the
lakes where perch, croppie, bass, rainbow and cutthroat trout were caught. Mill Creek
was a salmon spawning area and remained a good fishing spot until the late 1950's when
pollution and the encroachment of civilization began to have their effect.
* Much of the information in this section has been obtained from personal interviews with
Clarence Shoff and Ed Reitan of the White River Valley Historical Society.
r _
O 3M 2-1 O ..
0 so A E . o o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
Every few years, the river would flood its banks, filling the lowlands and leaving behind a
rich layer of silt. The City of Kent was located on the Green River flood plain, and the
townspeople grew used to the frequent flooding.
Agricultural Development
In 1867, a few rows of hops were planted in the Puyallup Valley, and hops soon became
the first major money crop in the Kent area. In 1890, after attacks by red spider and hop
louse, the growers lost a great deal of money on the acreage planted in hops, so they
diversified for more security and started raising oats and other grains,as well as vegetables
for the growing city of Seattle. After 1903, berry crops also became widespread.
Many local farmers owned cows, and the dairy industry became increasingly important
for milk, cream, and cheese. Cheese factories were located on the river to allow access
to the river boats. In 1899, the Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Co. started a condensary
in a hotel on the corner of Meeker and 1st Avenue S. The used a carnation as a trade mark
and eventually became known as the Carnation Milk Co. Their business grew very rapidly
with the discovery of gold in Alaska and the enormous increase in demand for storable
foodstuffs.
Early Transportation, Industry, and Business
In the days when the river served as the main means of transportation, stern wheelers
were used to transport people and goods on the Green River to and from Seattle, a journey
which took more than one day to complete. As well as the various canoes, barges, and
rafts on the river, Indian canoes were often lashed together for hauling goods. In 1885,
steam trains began to come through the area run by the Puget Sound Shore Railroad. There
were two trains: the express which hit the big towns, and a milk run to pick up the milk
and make flag stops. The Inter-Urban Puget Sound Electric Railway ran through the Green
River Valley between Seattle and Tacoma from 1902 to 1928. The main power house and car
barn for the railway was located in Kent. Other forms of land transportation remained
slow and difficult for many years. Until the Kent-Des Moines road was built, the only
route to Kent from the West was a steep, twisted gravel road which ran down the Kelsey
Hill. Many accidents occurred here as a result of horses panicking on the hill.
i
The Simplex Bed Co. was started in 1907, and by 1910 they were paying 10� an hour
for a starting worker for 10 hours a day and 6 days a week. Other early industries
included Rader's Bottling Works, manufacturers of soft drinks since about 1900, the
Snell Cigar Factory located at 2nd and Titus, the S. B. Hicks Wire Rope Company , making
logging cable since about 1912, as well as cider and flour mills. The first electric power =
in Kent was steam powered, direct current for which residents were charged by the number
of lightbulbs they had installed. The pipes which furnished water to the townspeople were
made of logs which had to be replaced at intervals. In 1894, M. M. Merrill, one of the
early entrepreneurs of Kent, agreed to replace the log water pipes at $1. 00 apiece.
O -MM 2-2 I I S 0 N R I C .E A. B I G N 0 L o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS ` ;�O
The most important business establishments in the early days were the hardware and
grocery stores. There were also a number of livery stables, hay and feed stores, harness
shops, confectionaries, drug stores, and blacksmiths. The Kent "Recorder" was started
in the 18801s, and later became known as the "White River Journal. " Communication to the
Kent area was mainly by telegraph until Dr. Soule established a telephone office at the back
of his drug store. The first post office in King County outside of Seattle was started
at Langsten's Landing on the Green River in 1867. About 1900, Dr. Owen Taylor built the
r� Taylor Hospital at 2nd and Titus. There were several other doctors and dentists serving
the area as well.
There were no schools in the Citv of Kent until 1890. Before that date, the children
went to a 2-room school at Langsten's Landing. Classes were held in the summer only
because it was too muddy and wet during the rest of the year. The first school was built
in 1890 approximately where the present Valley Elementary School is now. In 1902 this
was expanded from only 10 grades to 12, and four students became the first High School
graduates .
N
t
Leisure Activities and Holidays .
The working day of the typical Kent resident of the late 19th and early 20th centuries
left considerably less time for leisure activities than the average citizen now enjoys. The
original settlers had to be almost totally involved in the production of food, clothing, and,
shelter, and the townspeople, who grew in number as the industries increased, often
worked long days and were still busy in the evenings. As one turn-of-the-century citizen
r has stated: everybody raised chickens, grew their own vegetables, made their own toys,
and assembled their own shotgun shells. Despite the seemingly endless list of chores and
jobs to be done, the early residents of Kent managed to enjoy sports and other diversions
which the growing town provided. Holidays were major events in the lives of the people.
Since before the year 1900, Kent had a good amateur baseball team which played
against teams from Seattle. The baseball park was where Lynch Manufacturing Company
4 is now, at the south end of 2nd Avenue. The high school girls had a basketball team, and
the boys played both football and basketball.
The first two saloons in town were the Fashion and Czerny's. There were huge brass
spittoons on the floor, and side doors where ladies could knock and have their buckets
filled with beer. Everything was open until midnight on Saturday nights - barbershops,
stores, saloons, theatres. The people who lived out of town would come into Kent and
their evening would follow a pattern: first, the families would hitch their horses to the
hitching posts along the main streets, then they would do their shopping. When all the
necessary purchases had been made, the husband would go to his favorite saloon, and
i the wife and children would go to the picture show.
r
2-3
•EN INEERS
L S 0 1 a I C„E„r .I G N 0 l ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS G
The earliest established place of entertainment was the Masonic Hall, originally
called Titus Hall. It was started by James H. Titus, sold to the Oddfellows and then
to the Masons in 1904. Everything that took place which required a lot of room would
happen here: lectures in popular subjects such as phrenology, political rallies, Ku Klux
Klan meetings, election results coming in over the telegraph machine, meetings of the
Friends of the Irish Republic, dances and moving pictures. The moving pictures were
produced by turning a crank in a box; there were no take-up reels and the film piled
onto the floor. The cost of entertainment in the theatres was 10�. In addition to this
hall, Mr. Greenleaf had a penny arcade where the Guiberson Building is now, on 1st
Avenue S.
Dances would have a band of local men. They were usually held only on special
occasions, normally not even once a month.
The Fourth of July was a big holiday with competition events including a greased pig,
3-legged races, horse races in the streets, a big baseball game, foot races, a fat man
race, and greased pole climbing. There was a band in the bandstand and fireworks were
displayed. May Day was another popular holiday, with school children wrapping streamers
around the May Pole. On New Years Day fireworks were shot off, bells were rung, and
shot guns were fired into the air.
Halloween provided another big celebration date with costume dances in the Halls. Lots
of tricks were played: privies tipped over, gates taken off their hinges and hidden, and
wagons taken apart to be put back together on the tops of buildings. The next day, the
townspeople would walk through the town to see what had happened the night before. At
Thanksgiving, a turkey shoot was held, and the theatres gave away live turkeys to the
winners of their drawings. At Christmas, each church had a huge fir tree decorated
with popcorn strings and twists of crepe paper. Candles were used for lights. Santa
Claus would appear and each child would receive an orange and mixed candy in a sock
for their Christmas present.
O � � 2-4
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
Development of the Kent Park System
For many years, Kent remained a rural community. The people were
r 7 surrounded by fields and trees and felt little need to set aside areas to be
E left in their natural state or developed into parks for leisure time use. So,
from 1890, the year in which the Town of Kent was incorporated, until 1957
there was virtually no development of a system of parks for the City.
t
In 1899, Kent did arrange for the purchase of the present Scenic Hill Parkland
area for a watershed but attempts were not made to expand it or develop it
into a park, and no further purchases of park lands were made for many years.
During the days of the Depression, the WPA and some of the citizens of Kent,
under the leadership of Pete Baffaro, wanted to build a swimming pool, but the
City wasn't interested and the pool was built in Enumclaw instead. In the 1930's,
a three-man Park Board was finally established by resolution, but little was
done to increase the Cit 's y park lands.
A big step forward occurred in 1957 when a Kent area activity council was formed and
convinced the City and county councils to hire a Director of Recreation. He
' was to be 50% a City employee and 50% a County employee. Thus, Barney
Wilson was hired and the Kent Recreation Program was officially begun. At
this time, there was not a single fully developed park in the City.
The decade of the 1960's saw a big boom both in the growth of the City
of Kent and in its Park and Recreational facilities. With the aerospace industry,
the Seattle area grew by leaps and bounds and Kent got its share of this rapid
growth. For example, in 1957 there were only 5 elementary schools in Kent,
at present there are 17. In one year the demand for Park-organized sports
4 teams jumped from a program of 10 to 40. The City changed from a quiet, rural
community into a complex urban area before the people could really comprehend
the magnitude of the changes which had taken place. And suddenly a need was
felt to set aside areas for quiet green spaces with trees and plants, in which
children and adults could picnic and play. By 1962, complaints were being heard
in Kent. The facilities were inadequate and badly maintained, and the people voiced
their dissatisfaction.
At this time, the only maintenance employee of the one-man Kent Park Depart-
ment was a part-time employee of the Water Department who watered and mowed
the City's park grounds. In 1.962, the Director of Recreation, Barney Wilson,
hired the first full-time maintenance man, Bill Stevens. Wilson and Stevens put
in many hours mowing the baseball diamonds, hauling dirt and building backstops
for the park baseball fields. For several years, these two men were the entire
Kent Parks and Recreation Department.
ti ..
2-5 `
0_1O AR ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
In the mid- and late-sixties, more employees were hired. In 1964, the
first office help was hired, on a part-time basis. In 1967 two recreation
directors were hired, one for Women's Recreation and one for Men's.
At present, the list of Park Department employees has grown to 7 maintenance
people, 2 county-city Community Recreation Directors, 1 Recreation Supervisor,
1 Senior Citizen Director, and 4 secretaries.
In 1968, a county-wide Forward Thrust bond issue was passed by the voters providing
funds for the acquisition and development of parks and recreation sites. Much
of the rapid acquisition of park lands for the City of Kent which occured in the
late 60's and early 70's can be attributed to the passage of this bond issue.
Kent has managed to obtain 75% State and Federal matching funds for parks
developed in recent years. The Kent Park and Recreation Department has had
100% success with its applications for Federal matching funds for several reasons.
First, the Park Board has been very selective as to which potential park acquisition
areas should be applied for under these funds. Second, Kent got a late start
in the acquisition of park lands, and so maintains a position of high priority among
the cities applying for funds. Third, the City has been, and remains, below the
National Standards set for parkland areas.
It should also be mentioned here that the Kent Park and Recreation Department
has received tremendous support from the City Council, the Office of the Mayor,
and the community. The Park Board functions in an advisory, not an administra-
tive capacity. Administration of the Park and Recreation facilities is under the
direction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Since 1957, when the first
joint school-park contract was negotiated, there has been a close co-operation
between the Director of Recreation and the Kent School system. Their co-
operation has grown to include the interchange of everything from buildings,
grounds, and busses to maintenance of property and facilities.
Within a period of eleven to twelve years, the City of Kent's Park and Recreation
Department has grown from one part-time maintenance man to 15 full time
employees. Many acres of parkland have been acquired for the community and
development of many recreational facilities has been either completed or begun.
Several dedicated individuals have played a major role in the successful develop-
ment of the Kent park system. Noteworthy among these are Mayor Isabel Hogan,
former member of the Park Board; Mr. Pete Baffaro, presently Principal
of one of the City's schools and an early contributor to the development of Park
and Recreation facilities; and the present members of the Park Board: John Gretz--
Chairman, Berne Bit eman--Secretary, and John Fournier, Jr.-- Member.
2-6 O ;
oO XLB ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
�- Barney Wilson, Director of Recreation since the position was created in 1957 has
provided dedicated and imaginative administration during the park system's years
of most active growth, responding to the increasing needs of Kent's population.
Bill Stevens, the first full-time maintenance man to be employed, is still working
in the capacity of Park Superintendent.
The efforts of the City Administration, the Kent Park Board and, importantly, of the
E citizens of the community of Kent have combined with that of an active Department of
Parks and Recreation to lay the groundwork for the development of a successful
system of parks for the City. Emphasis has been placed on the acquisition of lands
to be used for future park development which will be necessary as Kent continues
to grow. Although considerable park areas have been acquired, Kent remains below
the national standards for its population.
r I
i
i
f �
i
i
i.
L
1.
`L-7
4 O M;L .ENGINEERSo I s o„ a,� „o I o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
Introduction
The Kent Park Planning Area is located in southern King County. Figure 2-1
illustrates the Park Planning Area. The physical characteristics of this
geographic area have a decisive effect on recreation planning, for they largely
determine the uses to which the land is suited. Although man may use the land in a
manner to which it is not particularly suited, he must pay both an economic and
ecological price. These costs must be carefully weighed against the anticipated
advantages of the planned use.
The physiographic factors which are particularly important to recreation planning
are the following: topography and drainage, soil, and climate.
Topography and Drainage
The core of the City of Kent lies in a broad valley which runs north and south
between two plateau areas. This whole region is part of the Puget Sound Low-
lands and the valley is the Duwamish. The plateau to the west is called the Des
Moines Drift Plain and to the east, the Covington Drift Plain. The valley is two
to three miles wide and twenty miles long, the northern end is divided by the spine
of the Seattle hills, splitting the valley east to end in Lake Washington and west
to end in Elliott Bay of Puget Sound. The southern end opens into the Puyallup
Valley. The Kent core lies seven miles from the northern end, nestled against
the eastern valley wall.
In the Pleistocene Era, 15 to 38 thousand years ago, the area was covered by
advancing and receding glaciers. As these disappeared, they deposited large
quantities of sediment, forming glacial drift plains. Later, after the glacial —
erosion and deposition, rivers cut a deep gorge across one of these drift plains,
forming the scenic valley in which Kent now lies.
The fertile valley bottom was originally heavily vegetated wetland, and was flooded
every year to some extent by the meandering Green, White, and Cedar Rivers
which flowed north into the Duwamish and thence into Puget Sound. The settlers
gradually cleared bottom land for very productive farms. Development was re-
stricted to forms which were tolerant of occasional flooding; structures were
designed to sustain minimal flood damage. With the White River diverted away
from the Green and channelled southward toward Puyallup, the Cedar River diverted
away from the Green and channelled northward into Lake Washington, and the con-
struction of Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River, the character of the valley
was significantly altered. Although the water level has remained high, the relative
security from flood threat has encouraged much more intensive development on this flood plain.
O X;L -Ma 2-8 O
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
"
The western plateau is referred to as the West Hill and the valley wall climbs
rapidly here, with slopes of 30 to 45 per cent, to elevations of 300 to 400 feet.
As the terrain "tops-out" along Military Road, it starts sloping generally to-
wards Puget Sound and with consequent drainage and visual orientation to the
Sound.
P�
` The valley wall of the eastern plateau, or East Hill, climbs much more gently,
with slopes of from 10 to 15 per cent, to about 400 feet. This undulating plateau
then slopes very gradually up to the foothills of the Cascades to the east. In the
western portion of this plateau the drainage and visual orientation are towards
the valley and the area is served by Mill, Garrison, and Panther Creeks. The
eastern portion of this plateauwhich is included in the Park Planning Area is
drained by Big and Little Soos Creeks which flow southward.
P
Water is a key element in the ecology and its surface flow is of major importance
i
to much outdoor recreation. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that people
,r consider water a very desirable part of many outdoor recreation facilities. These
drainage systems have evolved very slowly to handle surface water flow over the
millennia, responding to,geologic and climatic changes. Rapid urbanization has
disrupted the natural system of hydrology. Water which was captured in surface
vegetation to either slowly percolate through the soils in subsurface flow or to
be slowly released to surface flow, now moves off roofs, parking lots, and streets
into culverts and drainage ditches, and then into the natural drainage system.
This urbanization increases surface flow threefold and increasingly overburdens
the natural systems. At present, the growing difficulties with Mill Creek are an
excellent example of this situation and its resultant problems.
This problem can be somewhat alleviated by retaining as much of the natural
hydrology as possible. Vegetation along the drainage way slows the flow and
encourages percolation to subsurface flow. Marshes and peat bogs have enormous
storm water drainage capacities and tend to release their water slowly into the
drainage way. All of these natural systems are very compatible with parks and
recreation purposes and coincidentally with wildlife habitat, water purity, natural
ecology, lessened property damage and tax burdens, and aesthetics.
Soils
The soils are another key element in an area's ecology. They are very important
in the determination of the vegetation and hence of the wildlife to be found. Soil
characteristics also greatly influence man's physical development of an area.
With the aid of the King County Soil Conservation Service and numerous volunteers,
ORB has constructed detailed maps which indicate the degree of limitations the
k _
2-9
4...
O �A���EA. ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
l _. oso .��No�o
Kent Planning Area's soil types impose on four facets of recreation develop-
ment: campgrounds, picnic areas, trails, and playgrounds. These maps are
available at the Kent Parks and Recreation Department.
The types of soils found in the Duwamish Valley are the result of its early
formation as part of a post-glacial deposit. Formed after the Puget glacial
lobe had fully retreated from this part of the Puget Sound Lowland, 13,000 years -
ago, these deposits in peat, mass-wasting debris, a volcanic mudflow from
Mount Rainier, and alluvium, or sediments deposited by flowing water.
Although peat deposits in the State of Washington tend to be acidic, the acidity
is generally stronger at the surface. The waters filtered through a layer of
this peat become slightly acidic and may cause dissolution of iron-rich minerals
in rock, creating the iron-rich ground water found in southwestern King County.
Mass-wasting debris is landslide material which accumulates near the valley
walls and is inter-bedded with alluvium deposits. These alluvium deposits are
generally found to be less than 30 feet thick and consist chiefly of pebble-to-
cobble size gravel and sand.
The most common basic soil types found to the north, south, and west of Kent
are the Puyallup-type soils, although only 3.3 per cent of the soils of King County
belong to the Puyallup Series. These soils are derived from recent alluvium of
mixed origin and are varied in color from light-gray to gray. The surface soil
is mellow and friable, moderately high in organic matter, and mildly acidic.
Under this is a slightly acid to neutral iron-mottled, sandy, stratified subsoil.
Puyallup silt loam, Puyallup very fine sandy loam, and Puyallup fine sandy loam
are the most prominent soil types. These soils produce high yields for farming,
mainly root crops and truck farming, as well as being extensively used for pasture.The relief of the valley area is level to gently sloping, and both surface and internal
drainage are usually good.
On the hills to the east and west of the valley, the major soil type is Alderwood
gravelly sandy loam. The Alderwood Series soils contain several inches of
deposits from forestation and are of a reddish-brown color. About 32 per cent
of the soils of King County are Alderwood soils. Surface drainage for these soils
is sufficient, but water movement at the interior layers is greatly retarded by a
cement substratum. The land is best suited for timber production, and originally
was heavily forested with Douglas-fir, hemlock, and red cedar. Only fair crops
can be grown in these soils as they are deficient in organic matter and nitrogen.
Systematic reforestation is probably the best use to which these soils can be put
according to the Soil Conservation Service.
O � $ 2-10 O �_
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
The soil of the West Hill area of the Kent Planning region is largely composed
of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with characteristics like that of the East
k Hill soils. However, there is a strip of rough broken and stony land with a 25-
50 percent slope which runs south from Tukwila, past Angle Lake, down to Fenwick
Lake and beyond. The steep irregular relief of this strip, combined with a thin
soil material, make it unsuitable for farming or recreation. While the land may
be valuable for forestry, reforestation has not been systematic since removal
of the native timber, and the second growth on these soils is often scattered and
t thin.
Climate
The Pacific Ocean regions are the source of most of the air masses which reach
E the Kent area. The Japanese Current carries relatively warm water from the
western Pacific along Washington's shore. Maritime air flowing inland over these
warm waters serves to maintain a mild climate in the Kent area. Prevailing 1
winds come from the southwest in fall and winter, shifting to northwest in late spring
and summer. In the summer, there is a dry season in July and August when the
total rainfall is less than 5% of the annual amount. In the winter, there is a definite i
F rainy season which often lasts from October through May.
During the warmest summer months, afternoon temperatures of areas located in
the lowlands, such as Kent, are in the 60's and 701s. The highest temperatures
and lowest relative humidity occur when warm, dry air coming from east of the
Cascades reaches Puget Sound. These dry winds from the east seldom last longer
than 5 days before cooler, moist air moves inland from the Pacific Ocean, reducing
k the danger of forest fires.
Winters are characterized by the highest amounts of precipitation for the year with
many cloudy days. They are generally mild, but short cold spells do occur.
Climate obviously has a great influence on outdoor recreation activities and some
influence on indoor recreation. An example of the latter would be swimming: as
the weather improves and outdoor swimming becomes more enjoyable and available,
indoor swimming falls off sharply. Many of the most popular recreation activities
- such as picnicking occur outdoors, and are very dependent on weather.
Although rain doesn't appear to deter the more hardy, it does dramatically reduce
most outdoor recreation. The picnic, swimming, play ground, and similar areas
are mostly idle during this time, and only the playing fields are still heavily used.
With the moderating influence of the maritime air the lowest average minimum
temperature (32.2 degrees) occurs in January, and the highest average
maximum temperature (78. 8 degrees) in the month of July. The average annual
maximum temperature is 62.1 degrees, and the average annual minimum is 41. 1
degrees. Temperatures have been recorded reaching a high of 100 and a low of
R 2-11 O
0 E I o A,C„E„, .I G 1 0 E o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
-5 but these extremes are rare. The annual mean temperature is 51.6.
The mean monthly temperature as recorded over the years 1931-1960 are as
follows:
January 39.1
February 41. 9
March 45.0
April 50. 8
May 56.2
June 60. 6
July 64. 9
August 64. 2
September 59. 5
October 52. 5
November 44. 0
December 41.1
Precipitation
Because of its low elevation Kent experiences less rainfall than some of the other
cities of the Puget Sound region. December is the wettest month with an average
precipitation of 6.15 inches. The precipitation decreases steadily from January
through August, with the dryest month being July (average precipitation of . 84 inches).
Precipitation increases sharply in October rising continuously through December,
resulting in the fall and winter period of high stream flow. Streams may
rise several times during a rainy season to near or above flood stage. The average
annual precipitation for the City of Kent is 38.48 inches. The average monthly
precipitation is as follows;
January 5. 81
February 4.16
March 3.69
April 2.37
May 1. 82
June 1.67
July . 84
August . 89
September 1. 76
October 4.06
November 5.26 —
December 6.15
Total 38.48
O t�
2-12 _
0 N ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
r
1 The following table indicates the average number of days per year with varying precipitation
maximums.
Precipitation in Inches Number of Days
. 01 129
(' . 10 98
. 50 23
1. 00 or more 5
` Snowfall in Kent is light and infrequent, with most occurring during the month of
January (average 3.0 inches). The average annual total is 5.9 inches.
WILDLIFE
General
The importance of wildlife to man in the Kent area falls into two categories - consumptive
and nonconsumptive. Consumptive uses are hunting and fishing - pursuits which are
largely unnecessary for modern man's survival, but which continue as forms of recre-
ation. Nonconsumptive uses of wildlife are much more popular today than consumptive
uses. Far more time is spent in wildlife photography, observation of animals and birds,
and visits to wildlife areas than is spent in hunting and fishing. It is hard to quantify the
nonconsumptive uses of wildlife to man; how much value can be placed upon listening to
[ the singing of birds or watching squirrels gather food in a park?
The presence or absence of wildlife in the Kent area, except for those forms which can-
not tolerate man, is basically dependent upon habitat. By habitat we refer to the food,
water, and cover which are necessary to support animal life. Food and water are the
more obvious factors; cover includes the need for a specific type of breeding ground, as
well as protection from predators and from the elements.
Originally, the Kent area provided habitats for a wide variety of wildlife. The mild climate,
abundant waters and marshes, and lush lowland vegetation combined to make the area a
particularly attractive environment for many types of fish, birds, and terrestrial animals.
These factors have also contributed to making the Kent are a desirable environment for
man. As the population of man in the area has increased, the natural habitats have been
altered or destroyed, and the wildlife populations and varieties have declined. It is a pop-
ular belief that as their natural habitats are rendered unusable, birds, fish and animals
can move to another area and survive. But this is usually not true because adjacent lands
are already at their own capacity to support wildlife. The additional animals will, in most
cases, perish during the first winter.
Low elevation regions such as the Kent area are often arenas for sharp competition between
man and wildlife. Man finds this land ideal for agriculture, urbanization, and industri-
alization, while the excellent supplies of food, water, and cover can support good popu-
lations of a wide variety of wildlife. With the coming of modern man, this excellent
habitat has been rapidly altered or destroyed. Agriculture removed much of the natural
C � � 2 O
.I�.� „ „E„, a I G„o I o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
vegetation in the valley. While some forms of wildlife are able to adjust to agricultural
lands, many varieties disappeared. Urbanization is occurring at an increasingly
rapid rate; much of what had been agricultural bottomland is presently zoned for industry.
These land uses are almost completely incompatible with wildlife habitat. The rapid
urbanization of both the east and west hill areas is 'reducing habitat in these locations as
well.
While wildlife habitat is being rapidly reduced, many key areas still remain. Areas which
are good habitat are also often important to the natural drainage systems, and are well
placed for use as open space. With good planning, some choice habitat can be saved and
improved with consequent gains for the area's hydrology and ecology as mentioned in the
previous discussion of topography and drainage.
There is no need for us to justify wildlife being preserved for preservation's sake, for
those land use practices which made the land unfit for animals are increasingly suspected of
rendering the land unfit for humans as well. As we make the area more desirable for
habitation by man with proper open space planning and enhancement of natural drainage
systems to improve water quality and lessen run-off problems, we will be providing good
habitat for a variety of wildlife.
Present Wildlife Status in the Kent Area
For the purposes of this study, wildlife has been divided into the following three categories:
terrestrial (includes big game and the smaller fur animals), birds (includes both land
and water fowl), and fish. Figure 4-2 illustrates wetland habitats.
Terrestrial. In the past, both large and small animals were abundant in the area. Although
their population has greatly diminished, black-tailed deer remain the most common big
game animal to be found. Limited numbers of bear probably still exist, although most of
those animals with a lower tolerance for man are found further to the east and not in the
Kent area. Deer living in the area are most likely to be found in the remaining forest
land, especially in the medium to low elevation foothills.
Well supplied with the water habitat of the multitude of lakes, streams, and marshes
which used to be found in the area, the small animals once flourished. However, mans
need for stable land for his developments has caused a rapid decline in these natural areas
with a consequent decline in the animal population and variety so that only limited numbers
of beaver, muskrat, mink, river otter and raccoon can now be found. The rapid clearing
of the forested areas has also reduced the numbers of red fox, opossum, weasel, and
skunk. A listing of terrestrial wildlife recently observed in the area by local residents
is included as Appendix.A.
Birds. Before the dramatic alterations to the rivers in the valley, the wet bottomland
had all of the natural attributes necessary to support a high density population of water-
fowl. Area oldtimers tell of a never-ending series of flights of migratory birds moving
through the valley for days on end. With the urbanization and the draining of much of the
3M 2-14 ® f
1 0 L o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
�l
r , valley, the flights have been considerably reduced, although they are still very impressive
to the modern observer. Waterfowl still to be found in the Kent area include mallards,
wood ducks, teal, and geese. The majority of waterfowl using the Green River Basin
are fall and winter migrants. Unfortunately, no management areas or artificial facilities
presently exist in the Green River Basin to enhance the waterfowl habitat, and the re-
maining areas are rapidly disappearing.
i
l Upland game birds are more widely distributed throughout the area than any other major
game group. The native habitats which remain are populated by the blue and the ruffed
v grouse. Other area native upland game birds include the band-tailed pigeon and the
mourning dove. In addition to these native types, several upland game species have been
introduced to areas devoted to agricultural use. The ring-necked pheasant and California
quail are at present the most common of the introduced species.
Appendix A lists bird species observed by several local residents including familiar
field and garden birds as well as many rarer types.
Fish. The fish populations have been greatly reduced in the area for a number of reasons.
The reduction of stream flow which is partially due to diversion of the White and Cedar
Rivers, has, of course, had a marked effect. The overall lowering of water quality due to
urbanization and the associated damage to the natural drainage systems, along with the
addition of unnatural chemicals such as DDT, fertilizers, and cleaning compounds, have
also been harmful. Added to this general pollution problem is the problem of point source
pollution such as untreated municipal sewage outfalls and industrial effluent. However,
there has recently been considerable progress towards controlling many of these deleterious
factors and the water quality and fish populations have stabilized.
Important to the life cycles of anadromous fish in the Kent planning area are the Green
River and its tributaries, drainages, lakes, ponds, and sloughs. There are good to
excellent runs of three types of salmon-chinook, coho, and chum - as well as steelhead
and searun cutthroat trout. Nearly all the accessible tributaries of the Green River
support intense spawning and rearing of anadromous fish in the numerous broad riffles,
and some beach and patch gravel areas.
Resident fish species include rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brook trout, whitefish, and,
to a smaller extent, largemouth bass, yellow perch, and black crappie.
Appendix A lists fish observed in the Kent area by local residents.
O � � 2-15
O
oIo„ AI�„enr .IG„ono ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
in saturation between 1971 and 1990. All of these(data manipulations led to the same general
patterns which occurred in the earlier rankings noted above. These general patterns that
constantly emerge are: the downtown area is presently the most saturated and the East Hill
is the least saturated, with the West Hill ranking in between. By 1990 the saturation of the
downtown area will increase very little, but much,of the rest of Kent will show dramatic in-
creases. In this case, the West and Scenic Hills will be the most saturated at the 65% level,
and while the East Hill neighborhoods will experience sharp increases in saturation, it is
estimated that their saturation rates will remain below 50%.
Another obvious factor which can be gleaned from the population tables is the"leapfrogging"
aspect of development. The Kent area is not developing smoothly from the core outward;
many areas are bypassed as opportunities arise for the developers elsewhere in the City.
Such development complicates planning predictions and is a factor which must be considered.
On thing is certain, beautiful natural areas are prime targets for development and these
same areas are often the most suitable for parks.
Age
The breakdown of populace by age groups is important to recreation planning because
interest in an activity often depends upon the age of the participant. Table 2-4 shows the age group breakdowns for the existing neighborhoods. The younger people aged 19 and
under generally make up a large percentage of the population of the area, ranging from
35% to 50% in the different neighborhoods. The Valley neighborhoods, Scenic Hill neighbor-
hood and neighborhood M on the East Hill generally run in the high 30%ls with the West Hill
and the rest of the East Hill neighborhoods running from the mid-40%ls to 50% for this
younger age group. The adult age group from 20 to 54 years old generally makes-up 45%
to 50% of the population across all neighborhoods except for a high of 53% in neighborhood
M. The older age group, 55 and older, have a marked fluctuation in density ranging from
4% to 15% across all neighborhoods. Neighborhoods B and C on the West Hill, all of the
Valley neighborhoods, and K, L, and M on the East Hill have relatively high densities
ranging from 12% to 15%. Neighborhoods A and D on the West Hill and N, O, and P on the
East Hill have relatively low densities at about 4%. The remaining neighborhoods of E, F,
Q, R, and S range from 7% to 9% for this older age group.
Income
We are interested in the income of the populace because it has been repeatedly demonstrated
in research in the United States that general recreation participation is closely related to
income - the higher the income, the more recreation activities participated in, and the more
time devoted to participation. In part, income represents ability to pay for recreation and j
to travel to the recreation area. Table 2-5 shows the results of the income portion of the
ORB recreation survey.
O
2-24 ® �`
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
L
fA
6
I
Table 2-5
KENT AREA FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION
Number of Kent Families Percent of Kent Families
Annual Family_Income Responding to Survey Responding to Survey
i'
$ 0 - 2,999 41 3.6
3,000 - 5,999 83 7.3
6,000 - 7,999 105 9.2
8,000 -12,999 484 42. 5
13,000 -16,999 243 21.3
17,000 -24,999 153 13.4
above 25,000 31 2.7
r TOTAL 1140 100 %
Table 2-6 shows the figures from the 1970 U. S. Census. The largest percentage group
in Table 2-5 is around $8-13 thousand in family income (42. 5%) with only 20% reporting
incomes of less than this amount. These reported incomes compare quite well with those
shown by the Bureau of Census data in Table 2-6.
4
Education
Education has also repeatedly been shown to have a high correlation with leisure activity,
The higher the educational attainment, the more activities participated in and the more
frequent the participation. Table 2-7. displays the response to the portion of the ORB
\ recreation survey on the education of the head of the household in the Kent area.
Table 2-7
KENT AREA HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD EDUCATION
Education Number of Kent Families Percent of Kent Families
Level Responding to Survey Responding to Survey
a 0 - 4 7 0.6
5 - 7 10 0. 8
8 . 31 2. 5
9 - 11 134 10. 7
12 439 35.2
13 - 16 485 38. 9
over 16 142 11.4
TOTAL 1248 100 %
Oo ENGINEERS 2-26
s o„ A,�„E a, � ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS• O� .:
Table 2-6
1970 U. S. CENSUS OF
KENT, KING COUNTY, AND WASIUNGTON STATE FAMILY INCOMES
ANNUAL FAMILY NUMBER OF FAMILIES
-
INCOME KENT KING COUNTY WASHINGTON STATE
Less than $ 1,000 79 4,175 15, 950
$ 1,000- 1, 999 95 4,405 20,564
2,000- 2, 999 121 7,105 32,699
3,000- 3, 999 115 8,363 36,406
4,000- 4, 999 134 9,194 37,412
5,000- 5, 999 170 10,233 40,001
6,000- 6, 999 215 11,689 45,972
7,000- 7, 999 377 14,573 54,544
8,000- 8, 999 330 17,317 61,201
9, 000- 9, 999 430 19,313 61,750
10,000- 11, 999 871 41,931 123,735
12, 000- 14,999 1,005 51,638 163,011
15,000- 24, 999 1,266 71, 792 157,693
25,000- 49, 999 167 17,066 33,350
More than 50,000 40 3,010 5,644
TOTAL 5,415 291,804 862,542
O
2-27 � .1 RS 0 ..
. ��o�o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENG/NEERS
As can be seen from Table 2-7, 85% of the heads of household have been graduated from
high school, 50% have had some college training, and 11% have gone on to graduate school.
Only 1% of the heads of household report less than an eighth grade education.
INVENTORY OF PUBLIC-OWNED LANDS
ORB has attempted to discover and catalog not only the existing park and recreation
land in the area, but the existing public-owned land as well. An accurate record of
existing public-owned land may save the City a considerable amount of money in future
park and recreation land acquisition. Table 2-9 is a compilation of all information acquired
on public-owned land. Much of this data was obtained from the King County Tax-exempt
Rolls during the winter of 1971-1972 by volunteers from Kent Meridian High School who
were supervised by the Kent Engineering Department. It must be kept in mind that the
information listed in this table was obtained by volunteers from ever-changing tax rolls
and should be used as a guide rather than the gospel. Figure 2-3 illustrates the larger
areas listed in Table 2-9 which could be located. One exception is that all Kent Park
and Recreation Department property has been located, no matter how small the area.
Table 2-9 and Figure 2-3 demonstrate patterns of tax-exempt ownership in the area
and will serve as food for thought on future methods of land acquisition.
Property in Table 2-9 is identified by a three-part Site Number. The same three-part
Site Number is used to locate properties.on Figure 2-3. An example of the breakdown
of the three-part Site Number is as follows: Site Number 1-1-2 identifies Kiwanis North
Park. The first part of the Site Number identifies the major government agency which
owns the site, in this case "City of Kent" or 111". The second part identifies the Govern-
ment subdivision which owns the site, in this case "Kent Park and Recreation Department"
or "1-1". The third part identifies the site, in this case "Kiwanis North Park" or "1-1-2".
All properties owned by the City of Kent have a "1" for the first part of the three-part Site
Number. All properties managed by the Kent Parks and Recreation Department, a sub-
division of the City of Kent, have a "1-1" for the first two parts of the three-part Site
Number.
In this manner, all properties on Figure 2-3 can be readily identified as to ownership by
the three-part Site Number. Since Table 2-9 is rather lengthy, we have prepared Table 2-8
as an index to Table 2-9 so that the reader can more rapidly locate property listings.
i .
O � � 2-28
„o o O
o soN „, „E•, .,„ ARCHITECTS PLANNERS,ENGINEERS
a�
0 �
ti
q Acdm(D z0. z° a
a hwa 0 '4 5 � A � 0
c
E-+ o � � x '''
aA 0.' � 1-4000Avs
W
a
aj E-4 o r-1 GV m o �-4 GV m o r-1 Cl m ItLO CO
1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I
� x v� t. r. t- ao .00000 mM MM
oo wH
a
AO o
H � cq
F o d C'
LO
~ W � �. z w ° r40z
zA •�
O � crl
4)
.. "1 ,0 A
o �0 ' � � UAM c A
Arn
W�
O CC-4 E--4A � rn � � A v1 �1 � rn � x F� �
W !_
W
A
p�
A
� r-ir-ir-+ c� � � � coc+� c� e�+ wwer � � � �n � csacoeocccc ;-
O 3EL 3EB 2-29
o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS -
ii
recommendation of the Kent Sphere of Interest report is that the City annex only fully
developed residential areas in the future. The Parks Department must be thinking
years ahead of such annexation, for it must acquire lands suitable for parks before
they are altered or developed. By the time the area has reached 50% saturation, most
of the choice recreation lands may well have been taken.
Table 2-1 shows the population of the existing neighborhoods as calculated by the Kent
� Planning Department. This table also lists the number of households in the area and the
1 ' number of households sampled by ORB's Recreation Demand Survey. See "Kent Area
Recreation Demand" in Section 3 for further information on the survey. '
The 1970 Federal Decennial Census lists the population of the incorporated Kent area as
16,275. Since the City Parks and Recreation Department has for some time contracted
t with King County to serve areas outside the City and the Department has also had to plan
E well ahead of any additions to the City Limits, this figure is of interest only as it relates
to the taxpaying population of the City. Of more relevance to park planning are the popu-
lations of the neighborhoods for the entire park planning area. Table 2-2 lists the popu-
lations and saturation rates of the existing neighborhoods, and Table 2-3 lists the same
information for the future neighborhoods. The West Hill area is made up of existing neigh-
borhoods A through F (see Figure 2-1) or future neighborhoods 1 through 8 (see Figure 2-2).
The population of this area was 12, 700 in 1971 with saturation (density) between 27% and 54%.
The Valley area is comprised of existing neighborhoods G through J (Figure 2-1) or
future neighborhoods 9,10,11, and 15 (Figure 2-2 ). The 1971 population for this area was
7,200. Saturation for Valley neighborhoods I and G (Figure 2-1 ) or 9 and 11 (Figure 2- 2 )
were not computed as this land is basically dedicated to agriculture and industry, and its
resident population is expected to decline in the future as the area industrializes. The
saturation of the remaining two Valley neighborhoods is 41% for H and 76% for J, the down-
town district.
( The East Hill area is comprised of existing neighborhoods K through S (Figure 2-1) or
future neighborhoods 12, 13, 14 and 16 through 42 (Figure 2- 2 ). The population of this
area was 24,000 in 1971 and the saturation ranged from 12% to 52%.
S A ranking of the existing neighborhoods as to per cent of present saturation shows the
t downtown and Scenic Hill areas to be the most saturated. The West Hill neighborhoods
group together as the next most saturated areas along with neighborhood H near Meeker's
ftt Landing. The East Hill neighborhoods now have the lowest level of saturation.
1 .
The projected 1990 population saturation figures for existing neighborhoods show a similar
rank order to that for 1971, as noted above. The 1990 figures also show that all of the
West Hill neighborhoods and both the downtown and Scenic Hill neighborhoods will either have
reached or surpassed 65% of saturation. One would not expect to find suitable parkland
available at this state of development.
ORB also ranked the future neighborhoods in order of per cent of saturation for both 1971
and 1990, and then ranked both the existing and future neighborhoods by percent increase
2-19 � r�
O
r .,„„ono ARCH/TECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
� oo„ „, „Ep
Table 2-1
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, AND SURVEY SAMPLE
NEIGHBORHOOD (a) HOUSEHOLDS
POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS SAMPLED (b)
A 1,500 430 21
B 3,800 1,090 101
C 1,100 310 45
D 2,600 740 128
E 2,600 740 82
F 1,100 310 50
G 1,000 290 29
H 1,100 310 41 .
I 1,500 430 50
J 3,600 1,030 92
K 2,500 710 54
L 29150 610 63
M 49350 19240 120
N 2,000 570 89
O 3,150 900 .119
P 39250 930 70
2, 900 830 21
R 2,500 710 80
S 1,200 340 35
KENT
PARK
PLANNING
AREA 43,900 12, 500 1,293
(a) See Figure 2-1 for neighborhood boundaries.
(b) Actual households which responded to the ORB Demand Survey.
2-20
0 R � ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
O
Table 2-2
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION AND SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
Estimated
1971 1990 Saturation
NEIGHBORHOOD(a) Population % of Saturation Population % of Saturation Population
A 1, 500 43 2,500 71 3,500
B 3, 800 42 6,300 70 9,000
C 1,100 31 3,000 85 3, 500 1
f D 2,600 50 3,300 64 5,200
E 2,600 54 3, 500 73 4,800
F 1,100 27 3,300 80 4,100
G 1,000 --(b) 500 --(b) -----(b)
H 1,100 41 1,800 67 2,700
I 1, 500 --(b) 700 -- (b) -----(b)
J 3,600 76 3,800 80 4,700
K 2, 500 52 4,006 83 4,800
L 2,150 18 4,800 40 11,900
M 4,350 19 9,200 41 22,600
N 2,000 26 4,200 54 7,775
O 3,150 23 6,250 45 13,775
P 3, 250 20 9,250 56 16,650
Q 2, 900 17 6,800 40 16, 900
R 2, 500 21 4,800 41 11,700
S 1,200 16 2, 900 40 7,300
KENT PARK 43, 900 80, 900 150,900
PLANNING AREA
(a) See Figure 2-1 for neighborhood boundaries.
(b) These neighborhoods are expected to decline in population depending on the
rate of industrialization.
l OR � 2-21
. No o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
Table 2-3
FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION AND SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
1971 1990 Saturation
NEIGHBORHOOD(a) Population % of Saturation Population % of Saturation Population
1 1,100 44 1,800 72 2, 500
2 1,600 40 2,500 62 4,000
3 1,100 44 2,000 80 2,500
4 1,100 31 3,000 85 3,500
5 1,100 27 3, 300 80 4,100
6 2,600 54 3,500 73 4,800
7 2,600 50 3,300 64 5,200
8 1, 500 43 2,500 71 3, 500
9 1, 500 --(b) 700 --(b) -----(b)
10 1,100 , 41 1,800 67 2,700
11 1,000 --(b) 500 -- (b) -----(b)
12 400 12 1,300 41 3,200
13 700 17 2,200 55 4,000
14 2, 500 52 4,000 83 4,800
15 3,600 76 3,800 80 4,700
16 1,400 35 1,900 48 4,000
17 1,000 23 2,100 48 4,400
18 1,200 33 1,800 50 3,600
19 1,000 21 2,100 44 4,800
20 1,300 26 3,100 62 5,000
21 600 17 1,600 46 3,500
22 1,000 22 2,100 46 4, 500
23 900 18 1,600 32 5,000
24 700 15 1, 900 41 4,600
25 1,000 28 1,100 31 3,500
26 400 12 1,300 41 3,200
27 600 15 1,600 41 3, 900
28 1, 300 33 1,900 48 3,900
29 400 12 1,100 32 3,500
30 600 17 1,600 45 3, 500 _
(a) See Figure 2-2 for neighborhood boundaries.
(b) These neighborhoods are expected to decline in population depending upon the _
rate of Indurltrialization.
O -In 2-22
0 LSO1 R I C I Ea, 6 1 G N 0 L D ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
C,
Table 2-3 (Cont.)
1971 1990 Saturation
r -
NEIGHBORHOOD(a) Population % of Saturation Population % of Saturation Population
I,
I
31 400 16 1,600 64 2,500
32 400 16 1,600 64 2,500
33 700 18 2,100 53 3,900
` 34 500 14 1,300 37 3, 500
35 500 14 1, 300 37 3,500
36 600 19 1,300 41 3,200
37 700 20 1,600 46 3,500
38 600 19 1, 300 41 3,200
39 800 21 1,600 46 3, 500
40 600 15 1,600 40 4,000
41 600 16 1,300 34 3,800
42 600 18 1,300 38 3,400
KENT PARK
PLANNING
AREA 43, 900 29% 80,900 53% 150, 900
(a) See Figure 2-2 for neighborhood boundaries.
2-23
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS ENGINEERS O
1 �
O
C) w
x
z '� y
.. °
0 o
a � z 3
a s cc � o y x a
zz w z H
o o o U a w
x
a x x x Cd
d a H N En z a
a
( H
1 zCD LO
Wry o I o aoo cq co c+D m m c
° :
W z o 0 �, o o 0 0 �,
x
H
cq
qt
o
Cd
Ha H
A ~
U cq cq cq cq cq cq C11 cq cv C11
Z
z cq N cv N N N cq N cq cq cq
a U m co Ln � cq
W W , i r+ H N cq cq cq c11 cq cq o
o
w
O o
� A o
W4-4
t z
a a x 9
x x x 4 4 4 .x x x x x 4 x w
w Cd Cd m C m m ce
a a a a a a a a a, a, w a a w a
V
x x x x x x x x x x �4
in cc oo (M
� z
`' 2-30
E-+
z
w
O v� o
U � �
� Ean
z U W
O t�
:. O cz
O +'
a z .� o
P _ z LO a
cc T-4
a a a a a s a s a s
Cd Cfj c Cd 0 C
H H N H H H N H H E.
_ w o m o 0OD
+; z O �U o 0 0 o c+� r: OD
o
U
v
I �K
Q) LCJ LO uj LC� Lo Lo Lo
Pf
U -
cq cq cq cq cli N C11 cq CA N
U m m o m cc Ln Lo cq cq rl
z
ril
41
a�
A
0 0 0
oo o� o
c as m w r+ cv ,-i c� ,-a cq m
w I t
cq cli cq o m
cVi
2-34
a�
O vi
q m
Z �
U W
z
O
E4 v o
U
a
a4 o
a -
a�
w m M t-
+' �' � � -N 0 0 0 0 0
a a a a a a a a a a a a
Cd M Cd m m cri cz m
Ei E-, H E 1 E 4 F+ E-a E E-I E-1 E-I
Cfl (LO w
Z O �n m m Oo
O
U
v
CV W �M tfj Lo LfJ d� d d rM �M
c� O
Cd U
E1
Cu C11 cq cq c � �
J CV CV CV N N N CV CV CV CV
E-�
U m m t- L- l- M
W ri r I r-I
O
O Cd
�yy U
U] p --
A U b bio bio
x x x x x U U U U U U U
- r-I CV co LO r-I CV t-
1 I I I I
W O ri rl ri ri ri ri CV N, CV CV CV CI CV CI
O M CIOM M M M M M I I I I I I I
M M M M M M C9
2-35
H
z
w
o
U �
a
o a
a � zlyl
¢ Cd k Cd
w >F >F >E o M >F
r w L- eq m cq m m m m m � Lo N
U aaaaaaa 0a a 0a.41 00 0 0 0 0 00 0a 0a 0
a
a
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
v� N ti N
Lr M
Z w0 d. 00 0 0
0
U
I
N rr w d+ �+ �r mot+ .I+
a�
Cd
H
N N N N N N N N N N N N N GV
H N N N N N N N N N N N N N NE-4
O M co tf) cq L N 00 00 mot+
N N N N N N N M
Zi
0
y�
y
U
W
W .
o foll 0 o o c
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
O ,—I N M 00
W N N N N N N N N N N N N N
I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I
' Z M coM M M M M M M M CIOM M M
rn
2-36
F
W
0
114 x
° a a a
,.a o U U U
a � z
0 0 0
* x M x M r0
r1
t— 00 r-I
co 00 co m
C7 0 a 0a a 0a 0a 0a aa aaaa 0 0 0 00 0 0 00a 0
a
a
H H H H F H H H F H H H H H H
1
W cm o o �-+ o Lo LO
o 0 0 o
r � zoo 0
' U
v
� LC� m lfJ LO LCJ LfJ m ln lfJ tO ln IfJ lO LfJ ln
cq
C)
z
Cd
F cq cq cq cli C-1 N N cq C-1 C11 cq cq C%l cq
F C-1 cli cq cq cq cq N C11 N o �cq
U L- t- c- m rn m o r-i r-i M co c+a M co
W r1 ,-+ ,-i ,-+ r-+ r-+ r•+ cq cq cq cq cq c%l
l_
ff� O
W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
co �- oo cM o cq Ln co ti oo m o
Q CIO c� c co c� ra M, co A A A A
2-38
E�
z
o
U � �
a�
m
2 w i
(� z ,
l DO
o
m Lo
* m00 cq w
1
( E--4 H H h
i
W cq 00 � Leio o m
00
zoo ¢ m `� z
U I
E-+ o
cq
Hcq eq
E1
CW N N N G+) M ee) M M co cq cq
z
A r A
A
U A 88
W A A A A A A A A 1, cq ell m M
2-40
E-+
O ca
q � �
z �
w
z
Cd
a a
0 a x
" o
z
a U
o
o cn
z N o LO m * N x * x
ry o� N 0 o
t �
U O O O 4' O O " +'
a s a a a a a ,0 a a a a a
H H H H -4 H H
m
w N 00 00
P4 N o N .N-i w�' LO 00
O fir U o ch o a� o
z O -4
0
U
v
N � '� LO LCJ Lf' M LO L(� LCJ _ lO Ifs Lf�
..S?
M
N M N N N N N N N N N N N N
E l N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
r-I t-i ri ri rl T-I r-I ri
z
0
U
W
- W
0 0 : 0 0 g � -
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
N "14 LO o w rn o N e� mot+ In
N N N N N N N N co m c+� m m m —
W c� A A A cA � c� � c� c� cv � � A
l O
ch l c+�l c� chl
Enz
2-37
H
z
w
o
z
z
o
F
U �
o pz
a
z o � � 0
W ►n m cc cc cc ,-I �-+ d+ ►O m
a a a a a a a a
a a a a a
F F F F H F H F' F F H E-+ F
Z O +-+ o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0
s~
0
U
a� C7
L\1
.a
c�
F
cv cq c7 c7 c7 c7 c11 c7 cq cq c11
E, cq cv c7 c7 c7 cq cl N c11 N N N
Wm m o 0 0 0 0
r-I VD
0
a�
- U
W
A
a a
cq M LO Cc Lam- 00
I 1 I I
CIO c+� C+I
� z
2-41
rn
E-+
z
w
o
¢ � w
a o
E-4 '
O a p o
a) z
0
M m L 00 'W L 00
cv d+ 'n to co LO ,-, LO 00
C7 0 t-
aa a a a a a0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0000
a a a a
Ei E-+ E-, Ei E-1 E-1 E-4 E-4 E-+ E1 Ei EF F,
W o M o 01) M M O o d�
c-i Oo r-i '
" z O d'
0
0
U
v
I
lC� LfJ LO
CCi
E1
N N N M M M M M M co N OV N N
cV cV CV cV GV OV N Gil N cV cV
W00 1114 Lo LO Lo LO LO Lo LO CC CC CG CO 00
CV M M M M M M M M M
z
0
U
W
W
_ A
4
O O r-I cV M cr Lo 00 (n O e-I N
1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I
W ci PIJ e� c+i eo M CIO CIO C i M M M
O d+ rr � W d+ It t 4 d+ eN �I+ et+ t
In z
2-43
W
� o
O o
Z o
cd .�
U �
z
o
H o
o
� o
a
LfD00 CD 00 t- � �00 , co It
r-fLO
o O O o 0 o O o o O O O o 0 0
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
9 M cmd 9
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
a °0
Z O ¢U' � o C Lri C4
0
U
v
r1a
LCD m Lf� Uzi lO lCJ L!'J LO lf) Lf� LCJ Lf� lO
Cd
H
C11 CIA cli cq cq N cq CV cV CV CV CV
H cV N C11 CV cq CV N CV N CV CV cl] CV CV cV
U 00 00 (M m
z
0
- U •
m
W
- A
Q) C) a) C)
- x x x C) W
cq m 'Ili LO cc ti oo o ,—i m d+ U'� co
- cq cq C9 cq cv cq cq cq m m m m m m co
� z
2-33
m
E�
z
w
o
z � � � �; m m LO
a Cd 1 I I L , N
C11 cq i C cq , i
M
a � -
z
ril
o
a a a a a a a a a a a a a �
E H N H H h h H H h H H H m
ao cq � CDco o cq �+
0 0 ter+ cc �r o ai c�i r-i a� 4 o
20 -4
0
U
a�
Cd
E-�
cq cq N cq cq c%l cq N c� cq cq cq cq cv
c� N cq N cq cq N cq cq cq cq cq c1
�U to cc cc to to m co co eo co co m � r-
cq cq N N cq � c11 cq c11 cq c�
z
0
U
W
c o 0 o c o 0' o 0 0 c 0
U U U U U u U _ U U U U v U
w GV GV cV ca GV GV GV c� GV c i GV c� A cV
rO M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
n
2-39
1
M
O bA
U W
� O
$�4 0
€ • z
a
w
f z m o 0 � C
cq o 00 m �, � � rr -+
W 4 r-i cq oo w o N oo a�
a a 0s,4 0 000 0 0 0 0
a a aa a a
Oo
1 t- o
z° O4 cq m c� 0 a � o o 0
W
U �
i
c� Ei
eq
cq W eq cq �
Ei E,
A
W oo ct+ -4 cq m m ,O
co m m cq
OM Q) F
4-4
4-4
ca 5 ui a rri
m er+ ►r� ce r-
W M o cq CV cV m A
zmot+ d+ w J� L � � L-� M LeD LO
2-44
o _
o ^� °
U 0 O
C!1 O O
U d C!
C
p „q
o c�C N by �Cd-
° W 4
44
F-I
v W
U W O p N 4- O 'I
p O -
a
Cd .� Cd o ..
z 00 o m o x z
cli m o cli
O 00 0) NIH41 ri O
O O O O O O O " +' �' 4J �' i''
a a a a a a a a a a a a m
41
H H H H H H x H H H H H H .2
M
cq 00 00
W o cq co m o 0 0 m o cq m o
� o rr oo 90 4c� o � o
z O � '-, '-, ,-+ cq
tj � ai
cq A �r rr rr �+ L LO M LO L W
Cd
H °o 0
x �
cq cq cq cq cq cq cq � N Ecq cqi
cv cq c%l cq cq
Q0
m
i
W m m LO cq Tcr-+ r-I-I cq m m mot+ mot+ aD p
m m m
.a
z
L
C
o �
z z
It It
U N � r;
`n O m m m m
A 40
A A A A A A A A A GA
w w x .�
w
m �rLOto r- 00
� O m LO LO ca cc o cc cc m 10 cc 10 10 cp c0
z
2-45
t2i
00 oa cn
0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
r• r• r• r• r• r• r• r• r• r• r• r• r• r• t=i
U] U]' U1 W U1 In W M
w EnE r n
FP rP tP tP rP rP �P rP iP �P rP rP � rP
cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn
O
z
o tri
c co 0o 0o
H
H
CD
cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn
i
4� Q
C�
r O z
�n o m
'� O
0 0 0 00 o cn o o c� rn t=i
cn o 0 00 o cn
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H •
r r r t.-q r r r r r r r r ti r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
C � C+ C+ C � C+
rn N �-A cc w � r" r-A �-A to to cn
m m 00 cn cn cn 4 w w o cn ' z
m cn 00 lV � '' I'd to t=i
* x cc b cn w b
0 0 0 o rp 0 �. r
xZ CD
CD
CD o �n
9
i
m CD
o
CD
�i pa 0rn
rb
aq 0
`c o CD
o, 0 0
cD
0 0 �• o rn z
0 0, H
0
z �
tD to 1 f 1.
i w w w w w w w ND � � �m cn rP w LV I-+ o. w 00 of
CD
0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
dG CJ t7 tj l7 Cl t7 t� t7 d� G i w I.-,. r• I-- r• r• W. r• W. W. W.
rP �P rP rP FP rP �P �P iP rP rP fp C�)y
„�,+ C77 CT1 CIl G7 C77 C)7 CJl CJ7 CTl CT7 cn Cn C71 .
O
O
rti
°z
0
0
w w
c wa w o co 00 co o 0 o t2 -
ND to m tD
y
a'
m
cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn �
� n
0
v
ND 0
o w o w o o o C� 't O
ro o cn o o o c NDo 00
m c
0 .
0 0 ° r r r r r r r
C) r
° m x w o 0 0 0 0 0 0
ND
CD C;l
O 0
o
°
..
xCDr
m 0 m ° �. r0
(D x
t=1 M C/1 O (D CDp ..
(D O+ CD .o
pa
rCD
SZ
cn
cn
. 0 0 m cn O
O 0 cr
o �. cD
0. o
h7
z
y
z �
o �
w ca ca w ca C. C. ca ea to t t.D tI., t1:1 ca
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT 0 0 0
0 O ow O O O O ow O ow ow O
t l Cl d Cl u C Cl t) tC ° d tj cl u tv G
r• r• w r• r• W W w w w w r• r• r•
N- �-+ et � � e•f e•-r �+ rr � � � N- S-r •-r vj
fP rP rP rP rP �P �P rP iP °°. to tV N N
O O O O O O O O O N F-A I--&
F-� F+ F-� F� F-+ F•� I--� F-+ F-� tj O O O O O
r•
z
z
°
0
m 00
to tlD LND LID LND LND H
H
a'
M
KLI rth. 1
0
• n
0
,—� � N N O z
r+ t.D o cc o CAD c rn o cc ;o cn m �1 O
cn o cn cn o oo cn o m o
m co 0 o cc O O a o o� tr7
o W
tr r r r+ r rr r t-' r r+ r r r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0
�- r, C-* M. rt. C+ V+ et. C+ C+
�-A �-A tlD Ul I-A
00
PO b x t17 H ti
CD
H o
zEa
CD
O
a r CD
x � PO
CD CD 0
vw CD� m
o °. 0 CD � � ¢
� 0 � C
0 M
�• W. O (p
w o° 0r o z
x ° 0 H
o aq
0
0
o
0
0—Z
z �
cue c�u CD CD �. W
CD
0
C G t7 G G tG 4 C
cxp vi vi m °•
C CD
N N h O ~
d T+ (D 00 d
r•
d H
C r. o
1-1 C z
�+ o
o z
0
c -
CD
o 00 co t
z -
o y
tsD
o L=J H
t7 a'
cn cn cn cn
cn
n
H n
o
> o z
0 0 0
0+
ca oo ca cn o o ,� c tr1
H H H H H H H H y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r+ r+ c+ C+ r+ c+ C- C+ G�
�+ oo co r—A w w w m tr1
00 � z
r
z � r
° � o
>
o .
� * H
� � O
P>
"-
w
M o
02-Z
zrp
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I t2i
J., N cn coo t� �+ ca rj
m m ce cD m m m. m ce m m cu m
C� C C t7 C G G Ci ty C� G d d t7
rn
e•t- fi �-h cY cti- e-t- e••h �-r :.�. K ca
n
cn CA Cn 0
Cn wi 07 cn cn 00 00 00
�+ 0
cn z
ol 00
tlD N LD N I-+
CO co CD rP Cp CO n
n� n� m m
H
LSD t tND LID tlD tlD
y � H
H �
CD
cn cn FP FP tP FP r? cn cn cn to
H n
o �•-� � o � � o o vHi •� 0 O
cn coa 0 tv co C co am/]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ey- e� er C+ e-r C+ cr c•r eti-
o o Ul m lQ cn 00 W
I r
z (D- i
° 0
rn
CD
z
M C
CD rJ
0
w w 6D J � t.D N F-+ o trJ
rn cn w � w ►-+ w tv
r"�' Imo. CD -
r, a o �, �, co o a: C CD
CD O
p. o O m o
CD o CD O O (D (D
In. F11 0 CD
ro CD a, w C n
CD
K n O O O O
(D 7.
O W "CC
cc O
0 O+ fy CD
C+ CAD
(D _
C� C� cn CC w 1w+ w LID 01 C tm
C] -
L CV to bD to w tV
H
Z m
cn cn cn cn cn O �� t
� O �
ro 0
o -
ro
w cn o w t� M C� O
00 c cn o y
to
H H H H H H H H H H H H
r r r r r tr+ r r r r r r
0 o O o C 0 0, o o, o 0 0
� m m � Z
o c0 N 0 w
oo cc o
o �
* ND
w
r
c c cn z °c"' Z ro
r0 -
c� r
x
O y
CD O z
rei P
M.
CD
n
(�D
� � n
(D M] O
z
H
zU)
ca ca ca c� ca ca ca c�� ca e� c� ca ca tii
w 00 —1 �-A o
Z m b b o o
CD CD y CD �.
tj CD 't �, CD td En
�.
r 03 �+
W. b til
CD
(� vi CD ° z
CD CD
�' "• 0
LA
CD
00
m
tlD m to
y
cn c, cn Ul cn
10
0
> Oz
o t-A -0 It 0
m o m o to 00 0 0 ca
r
H H H H H H H H H H H H H
r r r r r r r r r r r r+ r+
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
r+ r+ �+ r N C-1. �+ C-+ rt. r+ r+
tv rr co i- 04, i-A tv to cC
�P x o0 -.1 N 00 cnco
b o ro o r
m o °c cn o ,� o r+ r
CD CAD CD co Q, w cn z m r
u� W CD o O
m �
01
rA
_J
CD °o x P. ¢
o x x ~ x ¢ o ° d °
0 °
m � p �' `� m
CD
0 CD G0 cZ
0 0 CD Co
CD
�+ W
z
H
m
E5—Z
z �
to tlD m tv tv tlD t!D
co m cn rP w m
�., CD d b N O N N m o
CD (D 0 F .
CD C-4
CD wCD tij
0 �• b d Cj bid j ID (D �• M
CD
CFCD'! I�k-i � �CJy, erA'f o-v''i. �
'b O
h
C 0 o 0
ID
d 0
e-r ..
CD
g -
Gs'
c tv �+ �
w na tvND ro NDtv tv
• H
a'
m
en en cn cn en cn cn of cn t�
i
h
0
O z
00
H H H H H �-3 H H H
r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° r � r+ C- C+ e+ r+ r+ e-+. r+ M
cn cn cn � � �
al
00
tlD
rn
N- ti
00 (DD r t-� CD O ti O K O
CAD w b
WE
cn
00
CD (xD CD fD ` CDa
h
. cD M O
m �
h�
z
H
ZT-S
y' ' �� Hwxm me a xMro o n�
w aye 1c8Q� ��"£ m ��� � y `'rye a� `grWry•°x�� �o��y �� � �.Q �� o�yw•�' �� wm
C.'� � 0° p °'N �' �.�y �,� N�' � �a w w�'1 �y o'�b' vg,�•m w ry H�ry m m C ��� m .�.�..� � .�My �' p•O� H
_ mom • ��' .� �• 0 0q x�� a o � ...� ,°'�., o�`i yf m m.y •ns k
�ME Ra y ti
w
A
1 1 , I • I Y N Y . . . Y Y v Y N Y
N W Y W N O N Y Ja.p�a Y m N m V m m O i0 Y m W �P N N�P W w m V W W I m Y m m V iP I w m• r I _
1 N N W N N m N N Y N(nY 9
a
Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
to
1 m Y N Y Ja W N N N N Y•I.n Y V W m• W Y Y N N
l m.p m m UI O rP .la w w m W m W W Y N Y as V V N Y O�p V m W W W Y gyp.Y f0 O�P m�P W m W m m w 0 m m m Y m n l
Y. Y• Y �Y Y W Y Y Y N rP Y N N N �P• Y w Y . . . � W i+. N . . . .
11I O m W N V m W tp UI �••V�P�p V O W�P�P rP W m�p�P O iP T is m m A Y tD W W N�P N fD�P tp Y m N�O iP m
W Y Y Y Y Y Y m N Y Y N N N Y Y N N IG
V W �m N O w m....
,la Ip V Ila W ,la,m,la W Y N w W m m V W V m 0 n
m N Y N N E W N m Y m m O m Y N m m
' � W • W Y N . :+ m V m • :� . N m N Y Y V • • m W V N• M
W W m W N V m m m A Y m V rP Y ip m W w m W Y m O W m Y m m is m Y m m V m w m N V.P N
hN Y V m Y N W �p N O m m m m A N m W N O m m W O N W•N.Y Y iP W ya V O W W N Y ...
V O O N W (]
M
1 N Y a m N is Y UI .P O V m I W rP I Y N Y N W N V m V cp m N Y w rP w m Y I Y m m W m�P�p m N W m Y W H
I I O k 0
I Y W I �' I I ~ I I I N Y • Y N
.a .-•Ym m Yoa.+m ,n�-+ o Nw Y,pmw Y Y I ,�, I p I..,y�m W I �,", Mtv
_
Y Y Y N �+ Y Y Y N Y 1xI�II a
I �.Y Y N Y m m m N Y m W O W Y W N iP W m N w O m m Y V .p�p N Y m m�p Y Y w W.{a N O IF U Y � m V N I JG•L•' � F'• I Y w I+ �d
I I I I I I I �� I N I I N� I '+• I N I 11 1 � I I I I ~ I �~ I I I I I l y y W N°i a x ro
Y J+. 1 Y Y W V I ~~• m . • . • N Y• • Y Y Y. • . • • :�• • I . • :+:�. , d
tp O�P W w N N W m Y V m O m m V.O O tD.P Y Y m m W N W I m�P I W W O�P w Y W I I m W a l •L
I W I I I m o I N N f+~ O>m iP Cn m I f!1•iY•O m ~ 1 1 I 1 Y I � I I I I W I W N i I � � xx a
W N N Y Y Y Y Y Y O N
w Y Y �P N N N W w m Y W V m N Y W UI N V V V f+rP rP m W V N Y Y V N W tD N Y W N N Y W Y V W w W N N iP w m a l roy
• O Y N N O W .N• • . . . • �
w l m�P O.GI m m Y Y{p m V m w w W m w N V V N Y Y m �P N O m I Y Y O m O Y w Y.m rP UI O Y O n x ro
8 r�
N N Y Y Y Y Y V a ero
Y Y Y Y Y W V N W tp V V m W Y N N W Y Ul m m m N O O N N W Y Y w m N Ja V I W fn Y N m Y m W m m w N V�P Y a l �H
Y.+<n .+.+� � .+�w-i o N wea w� coop-•eeo �w m�� a�.+.+� ro m v m: io�pw�� �r+m W o wF+o•iv m n a"3 -
xk
Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y N a s
�<nm m ao w�rw V,p �.c�nmN Yeomw.� om�eow mwvlww N V tO V Gl wmmwN ma�owcn ma N�nw a I k
rP rP N Y N Y N Y N �P N N [roy
N V Y N N Y Y m w .....N . N• • • :+ Y . • N Y Y Y r+ N N d
m N m N O Y m m 0 W O N N N w.11 ....V w 0 m N m W N m W.... .p N
' Y m N I-+ N N �P•+ Y Y N Y Y N
iP N'P m.. O ..... ..... ..V.. ....m N W m Y w m m o V N w W m Y N Y m N tp m V N W m m n
(1 W W rP m W m m W N.-.m�P m V W�P Y m W m tD tp O m tp m N ', • ~N ' ,la W w.P V �P Y O m W Y m m w m'9 1
I . • . :I':,Vm N m .....
Y N , N • • N Y• �W N N m ���l m N Y• Y N Y Y Y • N Y
J W N N V N w V w m O m..1. m m N W w ....V W r V p O m.o. W...
V Y N N m n
m N Y V Y m V m m Y W Ja W m�p N W N�P.P y m W m 0�P m W N rP Y O m w w t0.•• N Y w w,la Y m Y W Y m Y N m N a
1 N V • :P. .fin • . . :� Y N Y • . • :� :J iP Y Y m W Y Y Y• 1
m W N m Y m V N V Y Y m m V W N m m W Y W rP �P V m N W v N W Y m w U.m O N ..... m.m N N W N m m Y a
N N Y Y Y Y Y m Y Y N Y N Iro
W Y N IP Y m m Y Ja O m N m W W w m O V W�P W m m N;+. t0 Y N n+m w m m N Y �P.P... ....m
I • Y m Y Y N Y Y N �+�p I„�
iC N N m .0
N I W �P I �P. W N N Y O W Y w Y Y w m I w m m O Y m N V � I I I � m�P•P V 1 N Y.p N m Y w ip Y Y I I I • ~�
N m
Y W Y N
4.4.. N W N N VI N rP tp w m O N.P m W a
• • Y m • Y Y iP y.a N N
Y Y m N N w w W O�P m f0 W O m N m m O m m Y N m J+.N m m Y iP Y m O m W Y Y V W N m W w W m N UI W W N W f0 n
I•' Y w Y Y Y W Y Y Y N Y
Y N w W W
Ll mm O Y N IW.P.m IP N �P W m m i•Y Y V �1 N m m Y N W N W O O N tp m�l a
11 m ip•' N y,
N
m W W m N UI V W O N N m m m W W w m IP m W tp N m m w UI N W N N Y W.p V O N W W W W V W m A N Ja O N�P V�a a a ro ro T.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
General
The distribution of the characteristics of an area's people are of prime importance to
planning. At ORB, we consider the distribution of the following demographic character-
istics to be most important in recreation planning: population, age, income, and education.
In 1971, ORB, together with the Kent Departments of Planning and of Parks and Recreation,
determined the Kent Park Planning Area, the area for which the Parks and Recreation De-
partment should be responsible. In a recent rethinking of this matter, the Kent Planning
Department, in June 1972, issued the Kent Sphere of Interest report. The boundaries of
this sphere of interest closely coincide with those of the park planning area.
After determining the area of park responsibility, it was then broken down into smaller
study areas or neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were determined by taking into account
such factors as population density, physical barriers (streams, steep slopes, arterials,
etc.), travel time, socio-economic characteristics, and the Kent School System. Section
4 of this report discusses the neighborhood concept in more detail. Figure 2-1 illustrates
the Kent Park Planning Area and the existing neighborhoods. There are 19 existing neigh-
borhoods designated by the letters A through S.
In the future, as population density increases and the area develops, the large, sparsely
populated neighborhoods, such as neighborhood M,will break down into several smaller
neighborhood areas. This is a natural progression from sprawling, low-density neigh-
borhoods to compact high-density neighborhoods. In order to plan for this natural pro-
gression, a second map was prepared predicting these future neighborhood areas. Figure
2-2 illustrates the Kent Park Planning Area and the future neighborhoods. There are 42
of them and these future neighborhoods have been designated by the numbers 1 through
42 in order not to confuse them with the existing neighborhoods which are designated by
the letters A through S, as noted above. A map such as Figure 2-2, future neighborhoods,
is crystal ball gazing at best, but if we are to keep ahead of the rapid urban growth, we
must attempt to predict the types of parks which will be required and where they will do
- the most good.
Population
There are two concepts with which we are concerned when studying population. The first is
the actual population of the area and of its neighborhoods. The second is the density of
these populations, or how many people there are per acre. When the residential area is
completely filled in, and the population is at maximum density, the area is said to be at
100% saturation.
The population figures are important for they indicate the number of people who must be
served with programs and facilities. The "percent of saturation" or "density" figures are —
important because they are one of the primary indicators of how well the area is developed
and how much land is still available. The Park and Recreation Department must operate
with a somewhat different philosophy than the rest of the City administration. The basic
2-16
s o NA E A* . o o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
Section 3
RECREATION PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
r HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In 1840, about the time the white settlers began arriving in the Green River Valley, the
average workday was twelve hours long. A man worked six days out of seven for a total
of seventy-two hours per week. If one allows eight hours per day for sleeping, and an
additional four hours for meals and body maintenance, he finds the worker had only
twelve hours a week for leisure activities.
By 1890, some fifty years later, the work day was shortened to ten hours; thus, working
six days a week, the average employee put in sixty hours a week on the job with some
twenty-four hours per week for leisure activities. While this was still well below the
standard we enjoy today, it does represent a doubling of leisure time in some 50 years.
Today, the average workday has been shortened to eight hours and the worker is on the
Manya week.days five
trade unions are asking, and some have won, 36 hour weeks.
job J° Y tr g�
Thus, in 1972, the Kent resident has more than forty hours per week for leisure activity.
The average citizen's time for leisure has more than tripled since 1840 to the point where
his leisure time actually exceeds his working time. Thus, modern technology has created
a vast amount of leisure. The great problem is "What will man do in his leisure hours?"
The problem of increased leisure has been further complicated by the changing character
of man's work. In the early settlements along the Green River, the average worker did
a variety of tasks; although his work was long and hard, it was emotionally satisfying. He
got a sufficient amount of physical exercise and, although he had very little leisure, there
was very little need for organized recreational activity. Ironically, many tasks such as
hunting and fishing, which were once considered work, are now popular recreation acti-
vities.
In our modern machine age, our work has become highly specialized; a large majority of
the work is monotonous and neither challenging to the mind, nor does it offer sufficient
physical exercise. As a result Americans must seek in their leisure the satisfactions
which were once provided by their work.
There are a number of other factors which also tend to increase ormultiply the problem
of leisure. The tremendous advances in science and technology in the past several decades
have brought with them a steady increase in the tempo of living. Cities and metropolitan
areas are growing larger and it is difficult for people to know many of their neighbors. The
world seems cold and forbidding. For the younger generation, working in jobs which offer
little satisfaction or little chance for advancement without additional training, there comes
frustration. They are trapped on the one hand by a great deal of leisure, and on the other
hand by growing family demands, low income and lack of opportunity to work off their frus-
trations with highly active recreation pursuits.
3-1
O -- - ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
The pioneer housewife had a seemingly endless series of chores to occupy her day.
Although she raised a large family, each child had a number of household chores to per-
form at the end of the school day. There were cows to be rounded up for milking, eggs
to be gathered and wood to be cut. There was little need for organized recreation, and
juvenile delinquency was almost non-existent. Today, the family is smaller, household
chores have virtually disappeared, the work is not sufficiently challenging to the house-
wife, and no longer satisfies the high activity drive of the child. The pioneer home was
a center of activity for all members of the family. They participated in the various rec-
reation activities as a group. There were frequent family parties at which only members
of the immediate family were included. Such families built up strong family ties, based
largely on the fact that members of the family enjoyed playing together. Broken homes
and divorces were rare. Today, the American home has in many cases become a place
to eat and sleep. Seldom does such a family enjoy an evening together. As a result, the
members of the family have often never really learned to enjoy each other.
With the growth of large cities, the vacant lots and open fields are rapidly disappearing.
The mounting delinquency rates, the problems with glue sniffing, and dope use are clear
testimonials to how free time can be spent.
During this century, medical science has largely conquered the germ diseases which were
once man's most dangerous foes. Average life expectancy has been lengthened until it
presently stands at seventy years. There is a growing trend toward lowering the retirement
age of workers in this country. Thus, the implications are clear that large numbers of
older people will have well over half their time free for leisure activity.
Thus it is clear that our problem of expanding time for leisure is compounded by exploding
-- populations, increased mobility, higher standards of living, early retirement, and greater
opportunities to learn, appreciate and use leisure services and facilities.
In the last several years, much has been written about our sick society. If we are sick,
one of the paramount reasons is that our rapidly changing living patterns have made us
sick from an overabundance of leisure. It would be presumptuous of this report to imply
that recreation can wipe out all of these problems, but by pointing out symptoms, it can
give determination to the drive with which we pursue our future park and recreation activi-
ties.
THE SEARCH FOR MEANINGFUL PARK & RECREATION STANDARDS
The rapid growth of organized recreation in the United States has created a need for
meaningful guides and standards for the acquisition and development of park and recreation =
facilities.
One of the first and one of the most quoted standards for recreation areas and facilities
was developed by the old National Recreation Association (NRA) in the early forties. While
these standards have adequately met the needs of the 1940's our recreational patterns have
radically changed during the 1950's and 19601s.
3-2
- ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
In 1956, California was the first state to take action in developing a more functional set of
recreation facility standards. Its committee on planning recreation park areas and
facilities published: "A Guide for Planning Recreation Parks in California", which was
established as a standard for the state. The California committee concluded that local
population characteristics, such as population density and regional distribution, combined
with the proposed recreation activities are the basic considerations which should determine
the required recreation space.
In 1964, the research findings of the President's "Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission" - National Recreation Survey indicated that the eight factors which
primarily determine recreation activities for the populace are the following:
1. Age: The amount and type of recreation one pursues is related
to his age. The older he becomes, the fewer and more
passive are his pursuits.
2. Income: The number of recreation pursuits of an individual is related
to his income. The higher the income, the more numerous
are his pursuits.
3. Education: Education affects recreation participation in much the same
way as does income. The higher one's educational attainment,
the more numerous are his pursuits.
4. Occupation: The number and variety of leisure activities are related to
occupation and occupational prestige. The higher a person's
occupational prestige, the more varied and active are his
pursuits.
5. Residence: Suburbanites are more active and pursue a greater variety of
recreation pursuits than do urban dwellers, who in turn have
a more active participation rate than do those who live in
rural areas.
6. Mobility: Outings tend to be week-end (overnight) or all day excursions.
The outing destination is usually a public, non-urban area
within a three hour drive from the point of departure. Lakes,
seashores, and other natural scenic areas are usually the
destinations for people on day outings.
7. Opportunity for
Activity: Increasing the number of recreational facilities within a given
area may create a geometric increase in recreation participa-
tion. When the facilities are provided, people use them; in
fact, the presence of the facilities may create a demand.
X 3-3 ;
1 1 s o„ a,C„E a, 8,�„o n o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS,ENGINEERS
O
8. Natural
Character: Leisure patterns, leisure items, leisure facilities are often
used as status symbols.
In April of 1969, the Washington State Planning and Community Affairs Agency published
a technical report on park and recreation standards. This report is a technical supple-
ment to the Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan.
These new standards have been developed on the basis of actual user participation and are —
hoped to provide standards which more accurately meet the needs of the Washington State
area. This plan is currently being upgraded by the Washington State Interagency Committee
for Outdoor Recreation.
One of the most important considerations in the establishment of the City of Kent's park
and recreation standards is that they reflect the community's recreation demand. The
arbitrary drawing of a circle of a specific radius or a grouping of so many facilities or so
many acres per 1000 population will give the city a generalized plan which cannot hope to
predict or meet the future recreation needs of the community. Generalized standards are,
however, essential to the overall management of the City's park and recreation system.
It is in the implementation of the generalized plan where these standards become inadequate.
In addition to population densities and travel distance, the planner must consider a number
of other social and economic factors that determine the varying recreation needs of each --
neighborhood and community area.
It should be pointed out that more than nine out of ten park and recreation plans in use
within the state, probably had their root in the standards of the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) or its predecessor, the NRA. This is due, no doubt, to the fact that
standards expressed in minimum acreage per unit of population are easily understood and
_ practically applied by local park and recreation administrators. Because of this, ORB
feels that standards developed for the City of Kent should follow the basic format of the
NRPA standards. This format is well understood, easily compared, and easily applied.We must also keep in mind that park and recreation standards are only relevant in the time
period in which they are prepared. They must be reviewed periodically and updated to meet
tomorrow's recreation patterns. None of the guideline standards discussed earlier in this
section are specifically applicable to the City of Kent, but we believe an understanding of
the research and study which went into the development of these standards and guides, is
of value in the establishment of the City's Standards. They provide a base to which local
population peculiarities can be applied.
The recreation standards presented in this report are unique to the City of Kent, as they
were developed from a recreation demand analysis of the Kent area. Such a demand study _
allows ORB to determine the adequacy of existing programs and facilities. When such -
information is compared with the community's existing facilities, existing physiographic
and ecologic resources, and sociological and economic factors, specific recreation
standards are developed which are unique to the Kent community.
O � � 3-4 0-- '-
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
r
t
PROFESSIONAL RECREATOR
Concurrent with the development of new recreation standards and interests has been the
growth of the profession recreator. By 1962, sixty-five colleges and universities were
offering a recreation major . Today these young men and women are joining the staff of
l many municipalities throughout the Pacific Northwest. With them they bring specialized
knowledge in park management, community organization, program leadership, and group
dynamics. It is here perhaps that the greatest change is being made in the recreation
4 environment. With this training they can help maximize the community's program potential.
Good scheduling and programming will get the most user hours out of a facility. Good
programming, promotion, leadership will not only entice more citizens to sample the
recreation program, but will lead to a more rewarding recreation experience. Their
management and administrative skills lead to a more efficient, happier department. The
recreation professional is the key element of an effective park and recreation program.
Thus, it becomes apparent that in addition to the population peculiarities, we must consider
the recreation professional and his programs in the development of the proposed
recreation standards.
KENT AREA RECREATION DEMAND
In determining the recreation demand in the Kent area ORB has utilized several market
analysis techniques and studied the social-economic behavioral characteristics which
influence the leisure activities of the City's residents. We know that a true picture of
recreation requirements must be considerate of the participation patterns presently
displayed by the residents, as well as the future participation patterns. These patterns
have been quantified to reflect the current demand for recreation services.
It must be remembered that the ORB demand analysis measures the current level of use
and not the potential demand. But this is an important starting point for analyzing future
potential. What people want to do in their leisure grows directly out of their own exper-
ience, their knowledge of the opportunities which exist, and the areas and facilities which
k are available. If we were to base our entire recreation program on the fact that a large
group agrees that they want to play golf (these golf lovers know what they want), we could
overlook a larger group of the general public. While the public is vaguely aware that there
t are a number of recreation activities available and are experiencing a general dissatisfac-
tion with their present leisure activities, the public simply doesn't know what it wants or
has never really had an opportunity to experience various recreation alternatives. In a
sense we need to experiment with people and programs in various parts of the community
to see which types of activities satisfy this potential demand. The analysis of current
demand then gives us a quantitative measure of which activities may bear the greatest
fruit. As an example, if we can identify the current swimming demand to be much lower
than other community's and our inventory indicates no adequate swimming facility exists
in the City, we can conclude that increased facilities may increase the demand tremendously.
Therefore, current demand is influenced by the number and the types of activities or
programs now offered, the numbers and types of facilities now available, and the residents'
O 3M MM 3-5 ;
.I s.I AID„eA, .IGNOID ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
I
general knowledge and evaluation of the available opportunities and perhaps even the degree
of availability.
This potential demand is influenced by a variety of variables indicating the capabilities of
residents to participate in recreation: these variables include: education, income,
leisure time, mobility, the attractiveness of the programs offered, and to a great extent
the supply of facilities presently available for use. To determine the patterns exhibited
by the community's residents, a sample survey was administered to 2036 homes in the
Kent area. A total of 1411 surveys were returned to the City of which 1293 were responsive
to the survey. For additional information see Table 3-1. The following is an analysis
of the responses as they relate to the above variables and the City's park and recreation
demand.
Education
Educational level indicates the ability of people to participate using acquired skills. It
may also demonstrate a pattern of ability for a population to learn new skills. Those who
are better educated generally have been exposed to more skills which they can utilize
in their leisure for recreation. Of the respondents to the survey, 85% indicated they have
completed one or more years of High School. Even more significant, 50% have completed
one or more years of college. This pattern demonstrates a high educational level in the
City of Kent. Thus, the people of Kent are better equipped than the average community
with skills to participate in recreation. As the program builds, more and more residents
will be prepared to participate in recreation programs resulting in increased demands for
service.
Income
Income level indicates the ability of the people of the City to spend money in leisure pursuits.
The lower their income, the less ability they have to afford recreation requiring large
expenditures and thus, the higher the demand for publicly sponsored programs and facilities.
Income also affects the ability of the people of Kent to travel to reach recreation pursuits.
Of the respondents to the survey with incomes less than $3,000, nearly 50% considered
themselves not mobile while 23% considered themselves very mobile. On the other hand,
of respondents with an income of $13,000 or more, more than 65% are highly mobile
with only 3% falling in the not mobile class.
Income patterns demonstrated by the questionnaire results matched very closely with those
found in the 1970 Census for the City of Kent. The largest percentage (42. 5%) of respon-
dents indicated family incomes in the $8000-$13,000 range with only 20. 1 percent having
incomes of less than $8000. Some 21.3% have incomes ranging from $13,000 to $17,000 and
an additional 13.4% ranging from $17,000 to $25,000. The remaining 2. 7% exceeded $25,000.
It would appear that a major portion of the Kent population can afford to pay a basic fee for
at least some public recreation activities. Private recreation activities should also find
the Kent market more lucrative than other portions of the state as a whole.
3-6
O
o I s o I A ����E A r .���o o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS ® ,
d
t
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF KENT AREA RECREATION SURVEY TOTALS
A W WO O
a A
OR � A H A x � Z A W
A O w Ow H Wa
H z W O W H Z O A O W O
F z
.ri
i A 84 30 23 7 20 6 4 1 2
B 219 184 105 80 60 28 15 6 5
C 62 60 46 14 30 20 5 0 0
D 148 159 134 25 34 15 6 3 2
E 148 138 80 58 34 7 6 10 0
( F 88 88 53 35 48 7 6 1 4
G 58 46 32 14 29 3 6 12 3
H 64 64 46 18 10 40 11 2 5
I 86 48 29 19 30 4 5 0 4
1 207 181 1.10 71 34 19 20 7 8
K 142 75 53 22 17 11 3 14 0
L 122 117 62 55 46 7 6 7 6
M 249 187 131 56 63 18 7 6 3
_ N 270 189 93 96 42 32 11 4 4
O 180 186 126 60 101 36 19 7 6
P 180 91 68 23 54 27 15 0 0
Q 90 42 24. 18 23 20 2 0 3
R 142 110 88 22 103 31 16 3 8
S 68 40 34 6 45 6 6 0 0
Total 2,607 2036 1337 699 823 337 169 74 63
(100%) (65. 8%) (9. 6%) (3%)
l
3-7
oso„ p, „Eq, e, „oo ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
Leisure Time
Leisure seems to be related to most of the patterns demonstrated nationally. For instance,
34% of the respondents indicated they work six to eight hours per day, and 51% indicated
they work eight to ten hours. Most of the leisure time for this group will be confined to
weekends or vacations with some ability to participate in the evenings. In terms of de-
mand, it indicates peak use periods for programs and facilities will follow the weekend-
holiday pattern . Of less significance is the 7% of residents who indicated they work
less than six hours per day. This group no doubt represents the retired citizens of the
community. The remaining 6% of individuals that work over ten hours per day will have
little time for recreation activities. If we assume eight hours per day for sleeping and
an additional four hours for meals and body maintenance, a total of one hour for travel
to and from work, we find that the people in the Kent park planning area have the follow-
ing hours per month available for all forms of leisure pursuits.
ADULTS (19 years and over) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,029,380 hours per month
CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS (18 years and under)
During school year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 513,100 hours per month
Summer vacation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5,637, 300 hours per month
The above figures represent an average of 121 leisure hours per capita per month available
to the average adult resident of the Kent area, and an average of 185 leisure hours per
capita per month during the school year and 297 leisure hours per capita per month during
summer vacation for the average child and teenager.
Mobili
Mobility patterns are important since they provide a basis from which to see where the
demand is, and where facilities are necessary to bring the parks to the people. Several
measures of mobility were utilized in the survey. In the first measure was car owner-
ship. 30% of the respondents indicated they own one car. Therefore, these families
would find it difficult to get to programs unless they went in a group. However, 55% in-
dicated they own two cars, while 13% indicated they own three or more cars. Secondly,
residents were asked to rate their mobility on a 1-5 scale. Of the respondents, 92% in-
dicated they were mobile to very mobile: These respondents obviously indicate a general
ability of the residents to get to programs and parks not only in the City but in the county
and region.
Supply
The present supply of programs and facilities has a significant effect on demand. As a
change in the amount and quality of the supply occurs, there may be changes in the demand
pattern. To determine the status of the present supply as reflected by attitudes, the re-
spondents were asked several opinion questions. The following indicates responses from
the entire park planning area.
3-8
s 0 NA _ E A r a o o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
e
P ..
Question 1 - Do you think more recreation facilities are needed in the Kent area?
Response - Yes, 81% No, 19%
Question 2 - Do you think that school facilities are used for recreation to their full
`V potential after school, weekends, and summers?
Response - Yes, 26% No, 74%
4
Question 3 - Are you satisfied with existing recreation programs?
Response - Yes, 52% No, 48%
Question 4 - Are you in agreement with present policy of charging fees for certain
recreation programs?
Response - Yes, 79% No, 21%
Question 5 - How do you rate the Kent area recreation programs?
Response - Excellent 14%
Fair 42%
Poor 10%
Unsure 34%
If one looks only at neighborhood planning areas I, D, E, H, J, K, & M which make up
the incorporated area of Kent, we find the following answer to question 5:
Response - Excellent 14%
Fair 41%
Poor 13%
Unsure 32%
Thus the people outside the City feel the same about the programs as those within the
City limits.
Question 6 - Do you feel that parks and recreation services should be provided by the
City of Kent?
Response - Yes, 90% No, 10%
Question 7 - If the answer to Question 6 above is yes, answer one of the following:
Response - A. Provided within the City limits - 12%
B. Provided within the entire Kent area - 88%
If one looks at neighborhood planning areas I, D, E, H, J, K, & M which make up the
incorporated area of Kent, we find the following answers:
Response - A. Provided within the City limits - 18%
B. Provided within the entire Kent planning area - 82%
It can be seen that a predominant number of people in both the incorporated area of the
OMar s 3-9 C�
IICIE .. ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
City and in the entire Kent area agree that public park and recreation services should
be provided by the City and should be provided in the entire park planning area. However,
the people within the incorporated limits of the City and particularly the Scenic Hill area
are somewhat less enthusiastic about providing services to the unincorporated areas of
the City.
The general feeling by the people within the area is strong that school facilities should be
open to the public for recreation use after school, on weekends and in the summers.
It is also apparent that the public is willing to pay their way for recreation programs at
least within the guidelines of the present park department policy.
In general, the public feels that the recreation programs are good with only 10% expressing
dissatisfaction. In studying the survey results in detail, it becomes apparent that a high
percentage of people with no opinion exist on the West Hill.
It was also apparent in reviewing the comments written in the remarks column of the
survey that people on the West Hill are not aware of the City's Park and Recreation
programs. These people take the Federal Way newspaper and are therefore out of reach
of the Kent News Journal publicity.
The response to the need for more recreation facilities is significant (81%) indicating a
high demand for additional City recreation and park facilities. Satisfaction or non-
satisfaction with programs most likely relfects those who participate and those who do
not. If this hypothesis is valid, then a large segment of the population can be expected
to generate increasing demand in future years.
Quantified Demand
Demand as indicated by attitudes is important in the planning decision-making process.
As important, however, are the quantified measures which depict recreation behavior
patterns, and relate consumption levels for recreation activities. In turn, these dictate
a level of service that must be satisfied by recreation facilities.
The quantification of demand is based on the hypothesis that participation rates are related
to socio-economic indices, recreation behavior patterns, and interests of the residents.
However, there are several unmeasurable influences that force subjective assumptions
and could somewhat alter demand in the future. These include : the influence of regional
facilities, the assumption that people who presently participate will continue to do so, and
interests and present behavior patterns are a true reflection of participation. Attempts to
measure these influences of regional facilities were made by questioning respondents about
travel for recreation. The results showed that less than one half (42%) of residents travel
0-3 miles for daily recreation, less than one half (47%) travel 40 miles or more for week-
end recreation, but that the majority (90%) travel 100 or more miles for vacations. It can
be concluded that regional influences attract day use or overnight recreation participants
rather than local recreation participants. Thus, a high future demand will exist in the
3-10 ,
A _ Ear a o o ARCHITECTS.PLANNERS.ENGINEERS
area for local programs, some of which may provide skills for residents to participate
at facilities on a regional level.
Demand computed in Table 3-2 is based on participation patterns indicated by respondents
r to the survey. The "per capita occasions" refers to the average number of times an
area resident participates in a recreation activity. This may be for any given time block
that an activity is in season. Total occasions refer to the demand occasions for the
entire population. A per capita analysis is provided by neighborhood in order to understand
the basic needs for each neighborhood planning area. Table 3-3 shows an area-wide
analysis which indicates the per capita demand and the total occasions per thirty day
period.
3-11
O
O A I C I E A. •I G 1 0 L o ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
E-
Table 3-3
r KENT PARK PLANNING AREA RECREATION DEMAND (a)
Projected
Average Projected Total
Per Capita Population Population
Participation Participation Participation
r r Occasions Occasions Occasions
Per 30 Day Per 30 Day Per 30 Day
Period Period Period
ACTIVITY Adult Child Adult Child Adult + Child
Arts & Crafts 1.4 1. 9 34, 912 36,032 70, 944
Photography. .7 . 5 17,456 9,482 26, 938
Hobbies 1.4 1. 5 34, 912 28,446 63, 358
' Drama .2 . 5 4, 987 9,482 14,469
Literary 1.0 . 8 24, 937 15,171 40,108
Music 1.4 2. 5 34,912 47,410 82, 322
Dance . 9 . 9 22,443 17,068 39, 511
Bowling 1.4 1.0 34, 912 18, 964 53, 876
r Pool or Billiards 1. 5 1.2 37,406 22,757 60,163
} Wrestling . 3 1.1 7,481 20, 860 28, 341
Basketball .7 2.1 17,456 39, 824 57,280
Badminton . 3 .7 7,481 13,275 20,756
Volleyball .3 1.2 7,481 22,757 30,238
Handball . 3 .4 7,481 7, 586 15,067
Gymnastics .3 1.0 7,481 18, 964 26,445
Squash .2 .2 4,987 3,793 8,780
4 Table Games 1.0 1.6 24, 937 30, 342 55,279
Swimming (indoor) .7 1.6 15,456 30, 342 47,798
Bicycling 1. 9 5.0 47,380 94, 820 142,200
Power Boating 1. 3 . 9 32,418 17,068 49,486
Water Skiing 1.1 . 5 27,431 9,482 36, 913
Scuba Diving .2 .1 4, 987 1, 896 6,883
Canoeing .2 .2 4, 987 3,793 8,780
Sailing . 3 .2 7,481 3,793 11,274
Camping 2.2 1. 9 54, 861 36,032 90,893
(a) The projected occasions do not represent an attandance figure. Theoretical attendance
rates must be based on per capita demand related to population and length of season.
3-13
O R O
s 0„ „,C„E p, .,..,o�o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
Table 3-3 (Cont. ) (a)
Projected
Average Projected Total
Per Capita Population Population
Participation Participation Participation
Occasions Occasions Occasions
Per 30 Day Per 30 Day Per 30 Day
Period Period Period
ACTIVITY Adult Child Adult Child Adult + Child
Fishing (Salt) 1. 5 .8 37,406 15,171 52, 577
Fishing (Fresh) 1. 8 1.2 44, 887 22,757 67,644
Nature Walking 1.6 1.3 39,899 24, 653 64, 552
Horseback Riding .6 .6 14, 962 11, 378 26, 340
Hunting 1.2 .4 29, 924 7, 586 37, 510
Auto Riding 2. 9 1. 5 72, 317 28,446 100,763
Baseball . 9 2.2 22,443 41, 721 64,164
Softball . 8 1.1 19, 950 20, 860 40, 810
Volleyball .4 .7 9, 975 13,275 23,250
Badminton .6 .7 14, 962 13,275 28,237
Basketball .8 1. 5 19,950 28,446 48, 396
Handball . 3 .3 7,481 5,689 13,170
Speed-away .3 . 3 7,481 5,689 13,170
Motorcycling . 9 .7 22,443 13,275 35,718
Tennis . 8 .6 19, 950 11, 378 31, 328
Soccer . 5 1.1 12,469 20, 860 33, 329
Picnicking 2.2 1.7 54, 861 32,239 87,100
Swimming (Outdoor) 3.2 4.1 79,798 77, 752 157, 550
Golf 1.0 . 5 24, 937 9,482 34,419
Ice Skating .3 .4 7,481 7, 586 15, 067
Snow Skiing .7 . 8 17,456 15,171 32, 627
Tobogganing & Sledding . 5 1.0 12,469 18, 964 31,433
Snowmobiling .2 .2 4, 987 3, 793 8,780
Jogging .6 .4 14, 962 7, 586 22, 548
Gymnastics .3 .6 7,481 11, 378 18, 859
Archery . 3 .2 7,481 .3,793 11,274
Horseshoes . 5 . 5 12,469 9,482 21, 951
(a) The projected occasions do not represent an attendance figure. Theoretical attendance
must be based on per capita demand related to population and length of season.
O 3-14 O �
G N 0 L o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
RECREATION RESPONSIBILITY
General
The competition for prime recreation land at a time when recreation demand is increasing
faster than the population, accentuates the need for coordinated recreation planning be-
tween all public and private agencies. Since the ultimate goals of all agencies are similar, .
it must be recognized that no single level of government can plan for recreation without
affecting the recreation planning of other agencies.
In this portion of the report, ORB has attempted to identify the recreation roles that each
level of government plays in the establishment of a comprehensive nationwide park and
recreation system. Each has its own contribution to make and its own sphere of operating
influence. It is.therefore imperative that specific planning goals be established at each
level of government, so as to avoid costly duplication of facilities and to encourage co- {
operation between all levels of government.
While the recreation activities and facilities of the various governmental agencies might
tend to overlap each other, or seem to be cumbersome and inefficient, they do provide a
measure of competition, initiative and diversity which stimulates recreation programs
and systems that are responsive to the public's need.
ORB has outlined below the park and recreation roles for each level of government. We
have also prepared Table 3-4 which establishes the recreation responsibilities for
acquisition and development of the various recreation and open space area types.
Federal Government
The Federal Agencies are responsible to the entire nation to preserve, protect, and
maintain areas or sites of national significance for the enjoyment of the public as a whole,
Such areas include the National Forests, Migratory Waterfowl and Wildlife Refuges,
National Parks and Monuments, and Public Domain Land. Such Federal recreation lands
will not meet local recreation needs other than as open space or preserve areas. The
Federal government is also involved in the programming and operation of these sites.
.. Activities such as nature tours and educational programs pertain directly to the site and
are designed not to impair the natural features of the site.
r
The Federal government also has a research and planning function to assist local recre-
ational agencies and to stimulate recreation development.
The Federal government is responsible for the allocation of funds to state, county, and
local agencies. Federal Agencies which are most involved in recreation activities are:
National Park Service, Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, Fish and Wildlife
- Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
3-15
ORS O
o�s 0 N q,�„E a, 8 1 G N o n o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
Table 3-4
RECREATION RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE VARIOUS AREA TYPES
PRIVATE
AREA TYPES FEDERAL STATE COUNTY KENT AGENCIES
User Oriented
Small Urban
Neighborhood Park *(a) * -
Community Park
Large Urban
Major Urban Park
Large County Park
State Park
Regional Park
Urban Trail System
Large Regional
Special Purpose
Winter Sports
Golf Course
Spectator Sports
Field Sports, Major Areas
Special Interest Areas
User and Conservation Oriented
Boat Launch
Boating Areas
Freshwater Swimming
Public Beach
Swimming Pool
Forest
Mountain
Range
Agricultural
Wetlands
Conservation Oriented
Outstanding Natural
Interpretive * * * * -
Key Ecological
Scenic Roads
Green Belts & Parkways
Urban Malls & Squares * * —
(a) County should acquire neighborhood parks outside City Limits and hold for —
later development.
O � S 3-16
o 1 s 0 N n i c M e n* IIGNOID ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
rState Government
1 The State agencies are responsible to the residents of Washington to acquire, and preserve
spacious areas of outstanding scenic, historic or wilderness character. These lands are
to be maintained as nearly as possible in their original or natural condition. These areas
should have statewide significance and the recreation programs developed should not de-
stroy or impair the basic values for which the area was developed. They have a further
responsibility to acquire and preserve water front areas for swimming, boating and boat
moorages, fishing and other water activities, with camping areas if feasible. They should
provide non-urban recreation opportunities for the state's citizens and visitors.
The role of the State agencies in many ways to that of the Federal government. They not
only provide for the programming and operation of the State sites, but they provide advisory
recreation service and funding assistance to the local political subdivisions of the State.
Washington State agencies which are most involved in recreation activities are: Park and
Recreation Commission, Deparment of Game, Department of Natural Resources, Depart-
ment of Fisheries, and the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation.
I
Local Government
Local agencies have the responsibility to acquire, develop and maintain open space areas,
facilities and programs on a neighborhood,community,and regional level for residents of
all age levels, and to cooperate with other public and private agencies in supplying special
facilities for the cultural, educational, historic and athletic aspects of public recreation.
Local agencies consist of county park and recreation departments, park and recreation
districts, city park and recreation departments, voluntary groups and private recreation
Gp agencies.
t King County
lThe King County Park and Recreation Department has a two-fold mission as it relates to
the City of Kent. The first is in the area of program. They have a responsibility to
provide the same level of recreation programming in the unincorporated areas of the Kent
Park Planning Area as they do in other unincorporated areas of the County. In the Kent
area, King County has, for several reasons, contracted with the Kent Park and Recrea-
tion Department to provide these recreation services. It is anticipated that this arrange-
ment will continue in the future.
The second area is in the acquisition and development of parks. The County has a primary
responsibility to acquire, hold, and develop adequate regional and County-wide parks and
recreation areas and facilities. This responsibility also includes property of unique his-
torical, scenic, or natural interest and water-oriented properties. They have a further
responsibility to purchase and acquire neighborhood parks. The sites with which we are
concerned are within the Kent Park Planning Area, but outside the City Limits. At the
present time, the King County Park and Recreation Department is committed to the fol-
3-17
_ O 8
_ , a , ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
lowing Forward Thrust acquisition and development projects within the Kent area.
o Acquisition and development of seven neighborhood park sites.
o Acquisition and development of the Soos Creek Regional Park.
o Acquisition of the North Green River park.
o Acquisition and development of the Green River linear park.
_ o Construction of an indoor swimming pool at Kent-Meridian High School.
o Acquisition and development of the Lake Meridian Park.
o Development of North Meridian Community Park.
o Development of the Green River-Duwamish trail.
o Development of the Puget Sound Inter-Urban trail.
These facilities have been included and considered in the recommendations section of this
report.
Kent
The City Park Board should adopt a policy to acquire and develop recreation areas and
facilities on a neighborhood and community scale. They should attempt to acquire neigh-
borhood parks in areas where population density is increasing and if possible ahead of the
urbanization. They should supply a supervised recreation program in conjunction with the
local school district for all age groups. The Board should cooperate with the local School
District to plan special facilities such as swimming pools, theatres or auditoriums and
specialized sport facilities. The Park Board should work with the County and State to
provide large regional parks and riverfront development. They should also cooperate with
the school district in the joint use of facilities and programs and should encourage special
interest groups and private agencies in special educational, recreational, and cultural
programs.
Private Sector
Outdoor recreation provided by the private sector is generally planned around privately-
owned accommodations and commercially operated recreation facilities, such as resorts,
swim and tennis clubs, golf clubs, boat harbors, and marinas. Participation in private
facilities by the general public is limited to those with the ability to pay the required fees.
Private special interest groups are best suited to fulfill the need for recreation facilities
such as archery fields, rifle ranges, skeet shooting sites, etc.
KENT OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
General
Within the framework of the recreation responsibilities outlined in earlier portions of this
report, ORB has prepared a set of minimum guidelines for acquisition and development of
the City's Park and Recreation System. These standards meet not only the minimum guide-
lines proposed by the State's Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan, but also those
special recreation interests or priorities unique to the Kent Park Planning Area. Table 3-5
3-18
O R B0 `=?
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS •
li
Table 3-5
STATE GUIDELINE STANDARDS VS.
RECOMMENDED KENT STANDARDS
GUIDELINE STANDARDS
AREA TYPES STATE GUIDELINE STANDARDS RECOMMENDED FOR
KE NT
Acres/100 Acres/1000 Acres/1000
Users Population Population
User Oriented Areas
Small Urban Recreation Areas 2. 8 4.25
Neighborhood Recreation Center 2.25 2. 5
Cominunity Recreation Center 2. 0 2. 5
Large Urban Recreation Areas 3. 5
Major Urban Park 2. 5 3. 5
Large County Park 2. 5 Not applicable
State Park 65.0 Not applicable
Regional Park 10.0 Not applicable
Urban Trail System 2, 5(b)
E
Large Regional Recreation Area 23.6 Not applicable
iSpecial Purpose Recreation Area 5.0
t Winter Sports 21.0 Not applicable
Golf Courses 40.0 2. 5
t Spectator Sports , Major areas . 7 Not applicable
Field Sports 2. 5 See Text
User and Conservation Oriented Areas
k Boat Launch Area 2.6 2.6/100 boats Not applicable
f Freshwater Swimming Areas
I Public Beaches 65 Effective Feet 65 Effective Feet
Swimming Pools 6.0 1 pool/20-25, 000(,) See Text
Forest Areas 1600.0 Not applicable
Mountain Areas 1600.0 Not applicable
Range Areas 1000.0 Not applicable
Agricultural Areas 800.0 Not applicable
Wetlands 1200.0 Not applicable
Conservation Oriented Areas --
Outstanding Natural Areas -- Not applicable
Interpretive Areas -- -- As available
Key Ecological Areas -- -- Not applicable
Scenic Roads -- -- As available
Green Belts & Parkways -- -- • 5
Urban Malls & Squares -- -- • 5
a) Standard of one 75, x 42' swimming pool/20,000 - 25, 000 population
Based on 15 right-of-way.
3-19
ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
shows a comparison between the State's user standards and those recommended for
adoption by the City's Park and Recreation Department. A detailed description of the
area types which are significant to the City's park and recreation responsibilities are
included in this section. Also included in this section are the various factors which were
considered while developing the Kent park and recreation standards.
Establishment of the Planning Goals
The standards presented in this report are only recommended guidelines to assist the Park
and Recreation Department in the development of a wide range of recreation opportunities.
The reader must view these standards as flexible guidelines meant to give direction and
purpose to the park department's efforts, but not to discourage initiative or originality in
the development of the park system. The park and recreation administrators must be
constantly alert to new activities or trends that might alter the standards presented here.
As discussed earlier in this report, ORB has attempted to present these standards in the
formats common to the NRPA and the Statewide Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan.
In respect to the latter, we have used the area type designations adopted in the Statewide
Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF BASIC SPACE REQUIREMENTS
General
The basic space requirements presented in this section of the report are intended to meet
the specific requirements of the Kent Park Planning Area. While they are generally con-
sistent with the Statewide Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan, several standards
" have been modified to meet the special needs of the Kent Community. A discussion of
the considerations leading to these modifications follows. The space requirements
presented below are not absolute, but only guides to be used as a basis for the acquisition
and development of each park site. A detailed review of each proposed standard should
be made every five years to assure that they meet the following criteria:
1. Do they satisfy the needs of the City?
2. Are they consistent with the City's recent experience?
3. Are they still acceptable to State and Federal planning agencies?
4. Are they readily attainable?
ORB feels that the space standards recommended below will provide adequate facilities
for the future recreation demands of the Kent Park Planning Area. These standards are
also within the financial resources of the City's tax payers. As with the purchase of any
public facility, the citizens of the area must make a solid commitment to meet the
goals outlined in this report, but unlike other public facilities such as water supply and
sewage disposal, the State and Federal government will not twist the City's arm to finance -
the proper facilities. This decision rests solely with the people of Kent.
O 3M 3-20
""OLD ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
r
User Oriented Areas
1. Neighborhood Recreation Center
Definition
The neighborhood recreation area is a combination playground and park which
provides for both indoor and outdoor activities. These parks should be designed
primarily for those non-supervised recreation activities which can daily be
engaged in by children five to fourteen years of age and by family groups. Since
such parks are located within walking and bicycling distance of neighborhood
residents, these activities will become a daily passtime for the neighborhood
children. In the larger neighborhood parks the multi-purpose fields will be
utilized for organized community activities.
Service Radius
1/2 miles in single family residential neighborhoods where saturation populations
will reach 10-15 people per acre, and 2500-4000 population served.
1/4 miles in smaller multi-family residential neighborhoods where saturation
populations will reach 30-50 persons per acre. Duplex and two and three story
apartments. 3500-4500 served.
Space and Number Required
Minimum: 2. 5 acres/1000 population
Size Range: 6. 0 acres minimum; 9 acres desirable; 12 acres maximum
1 For smaller neighborhoods or neighborhoods adjacent to an elementary school
which.has a large open play area, a smaller six acre site is sufficient. If no
elementary school exists in the neighborhood, a larger neighborhood recreation
area is required.
The space standard recommended by the statewide Outdoor Recreation and Openspace
Plan for the acquisition of neighborhood parks is 2. 5 acres per 1000 population.
ORB concurs that this is a reasonable goal for the Kent area.
More important than the number of desirable acres, is the character of the site and its
development potential. Is it flat and rolling or steep and hilly? Is the soil fertile
or barren? Is it well drained? Does it have a good area of natural growth? What
about the location, access, and availability of utilities? However, the determination
of the actual park's location and size is often determined by the parcels of land which
' are available, by the market price, and by the willingness of the owner to sell.
1 :
It is in the application of these standards that the success of your park and recreation
system will be determined. For guidance in site selection and development of
neighborhood parks, see Section 4 of this report.
N3-21
F � „ a , ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS O
-
Desirable Improvements
a. Active high use area
0 open area for free play
o multi-purpose field for softball, little league, and soccer
o play area for elementary school children
o play area for preschool children
o water oriented activity area
o paved game court
o neighborhood center building
0 off street parking
b. Passive low use area
o picnic
o senior citizen's area
o natural area
o trails
o nature study and science area
o special interest features
2. Community Recreation Center
Definition
The community recreation center is planned primarily to provide opportunities for
recreation activities for young people and adults. In general such activities are
organized around large groups or teams, although individual and family activities
are also provided. It provides both outdoor and indoor facilities to meet a wider
range of community recreation interests than could be provided at the neighborhood
recreation area.
Service Radius
At the present time, the service radius is not as important a factor to the Kent
community as it will become in the future. People presently drive up to 20 minutes
from all areas of the planning area to the downtown area to shop, visit and engage
in recreational, cultural and educational activities. A community recreation center
should serve a population of from 20,000 to 25,000 people.
Space & Number
Minimum: 2. 50 acres/1000 population
= Size Range: 30 to 40 acres desirable; 50 acres maximum
Number of community centers: At the present time the population of the Kent
area is some 44,000 people. It is, however, spread over a large geographical area.
The density of population is not great except in a few isolated areas and the feeling
is largely rural suburban in character. For this reason ORB feels that one community
recreation center with indoor activity facilities will adequately serve the community
in the next five to ten years. Outdoor facilities are another question. The emphasis
3-22
O R � ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O ��
r�
on organized team activities in the Kent area and in the whole Green River Valley
has increased the demand for outdoor community park and athletic facilities tremen-
dously. In the Kent area during the past four years, the demand for baseball has
increased 55% and the demand for softball 62%, while the population of the same area
has increased only 17%. Data obtained by ORB indicate that the existing Kent baseball
and softball fields are receiving nearly 25% more play per available field than other
communities. Thus the demand for outdoor athletic facilities must be supplied
well ahead of that for indoor recreation centers. At the present time three outdoor
community recreation centers should be provided in the City. By 1985 to 1990
three additional centers should be provided.
r !
Desirable Improvements
o Playlot and mothers' area
o Play area for elementary school age children
o Several large fields for sports
o Multipurpose courts & tennis courts
o Parklike area for free play
o Family and group picnic areas
o Area for special events
F o Community Center Building for arts and crafts, study and meeting rooms, j
t multi-purpose room, and auditorium and lounge facilities
o Regulation indoor swimming pool
o Natural area
o Senior citizens' center
o Off street parking
o Greenbelt buffer area
3. Major Urban Park
Definition
A major urban park is a large area containing broad expanses of natural scenery
and a wide range of facilities for passive and active recreation. Such a park is
designed and developed for large numbers of people of all age groups. It often
contains major facilities and special features of city-wide and regional interest.
ti Service Radius
In a densely populated area, the service radius for this type of facility has been
established by the statewide plan as 2 to 3 miles. In a small community such as the
Kent area, this service area will extend over the entire park planning area. A
major urban park should serve 40,000 to 80,000 people.
Space and Number
Minimum: 3. 5 acres/1000 population
Size range: 40 acres minimum; 100 to 200 acres desirable
The ORB Recreation Survey indicated a much higher demand for major open
spaces than state standards would provide for. Swimming, bicycling, picnicking,
fishing, and camping lead the list of recreation activity. Thus we recommend
3-23
s O -
w O 3M r I c r c., . N o o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS ENGINEERS
a higher standard for the regional river front park.
Desirable Improvements
o natural landscape areas
o large picnic areas
o day camps
o paths for hiking and bicycling
o bridle paths
0 open areas for free play
o playgrounds and playfields
o river access and fishing
o boating, swimming and other water oriented facilities
o wild life preserves
o arboretum
o comfort stations
0 off street parking
4. Urban Trail System
Definition
Urban trail system traverses highly populated areas connecting urban activities and
providing access to nearby recreation areas. The system serves both a transporta-
tion function and a recreation function for urban residents. An interconnecting,
harmonious combination of urban trail types produces an urban trail system. A
variety of recreation areas, parks, facilities and other attractions are served by
these trails and are an integral part of the trail system. Such a trail system might
include trails for pedestrians, bicycles, horses or motor bikes. There is a need
for separate facilities for motorized recreation vehicles as their use of the trail
system would not be compatible with residential, urban neighborhoods.
Trails Required
Activity Trails Per 100 Users
Pedestrian 0. 9 miles
Bicycle 0. 57 miles
Equestrian 1.1 miles
Motorcycle 1 acre/5000 people
Desirable Improvements
o pedestrian trails: 5' wide surfaced trails
o bicycle paths: 6' wide paved path
o equestrian trails: 8' wide natural trail
O � � 3-24 _,
0 1 s 0N AI_�1 E A, a I� »o n o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS,ENGINEERS
O
r,
5. Golf Course Recreation Area
r ,
Description
Golf course recreation areas may include a standard nine-hole or eighteen hole
r course, a three-par golf course, a driving range or a pitch and putt course. Such
an area may be combined with a larger park area and may include ancillary
activities for passive recreation.
Service Radius
The desirable service area would include the entire Kent area.
r
Space and Number
Minimum: 2. 5 acres per 1000 population
Size Range: 110 acres minimum; 120 to 160 acres desirable for 18 hole course.
Number of Facilities: A desirable standard for development is one 18-hole course
for each 50, 000 persons, thus, the area would require only one 18 hole course until
approximately 1990. Eventually three golf courses would be required. The Kent
Park Planning Area presently has one public nine hole golf course, Colony Park
Golf Course, and one eighteen hole private course, Meridian Valley Golf and
Country Club.
Desirable Improvements
o Clubhouse
o In order to more effectively utilize the large areas necessary for a golf course,
other outdoor recreation of a compatible nature appealing to adults may be
combined with golf courses where convenient and whenever safe and adequate
control is possible.
o Adequate offstreet parking.
6. Major Spectator Sports Areas (Stadium or Coliseum)
Definition
These areas are specifically designed for spectator seating and while a variety of
special events such as football or baseball might be held in the arena, the need for
facilities is determined by spectator activity. The arena should be developed as
close as possible to the center of the population it is serving.
Service Radius
The service radius for such a facility would be approximately 25 miles according
to the statewide plan.
Space and Number
ORB sees no requirement in the Kent area for a large spectator sports area. The
Kent resident will utilize the Seattle and Tacoma facilities for this type of activity.
We do see a need in the Kent planning area for small spectator areas, such as
athletic fields. These have been included in our plan under the community recreation
3-25 t ,
t O � � ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
O
centers. We also see a need for a small riding arena. This has also been included
in the recommended plan.
7. Field Sports Practice Areas
Definition
Open areas of variable size located throughout the county area, and used as practice
areas for field trials, target shooting and other activities generally related to
hunting. These areas provide an opportunity for archery, target practice, skeet
shooting competition, and attending sports and field events.
Service Radius
The service radius for this type of facility should be considered to be the entire
county, although the statewide plan identifies a 25 mile radius.
Space and Number
Minimum: 2. 5 acres per 100 users
Size Range: 10 to 125 acres
Number: These facilities are generally owned and operated on a club basis. Most
of them are open to the public for a fee, with the club member having priority for
the use of the facility. These facilities are developed as the interest and need
develop - no specific number is recommended.
User and Conservation Oriented Areas
1. Boating Areas
Definition
Boating areas are those areas needed for land access, launching and ancillary
facilities. In the Kent area these are found on several local lakes and the Green River.
Areas should be provided for river and lake access for swimming, fishing, and
picnicking.
Service Radius
Boating facilities have service radius extending from 25 miles to 150 miles according
to the statewide plan. The facilities developed within the Kent area should, however,
be designed to service only the area's population. For the most part these activities
will include river floating, kayaking, and small motor boats. The resident population
must travel to Lake Washington on the north, or Puget Sound on the west, to engage in
any serious power boating or sailing activities.
Space and Number Required
Minimum: 2.6 acres per 100 users
Size range: 2 to 8 acres
O 3-26
(5
s 0 N A I_.E A* ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
2. Freshwater Swimming Areas
r
General
These are areas adjacent to freshwater lakes and streams which are desirable
r for recreation purposes because of the water orientation and the opportunity for
wading and swimming. Kent has several opportunities for a natural beach area
on the Green River and several small lakes within the park planning area. Since j
the opportunity for freshwater swimming is small, we have included a standard for 1
development of swimming pools which will in the future provide the larger share
of the area's future swimming opportunities.
r
a. Beach Area
Definition
These beach areas are located on a freshwater lake or stream and provide
recreation opportunities for swimming, picnicking, semi-active and passive
sports and games, nature study and walking for pleasure.
Service Radius
The service radius for this area type will cover the entire Kent area.
Space and Number
Minimum: 65 effective feet, per 1000 population
Size range: 600 front feet minimum and 3600 maximum
Desirable Improvements
o Bathhouse and restrooms
o Space for swimming, wading and sunning
o Space for out-of-water recreation
o Childrens' play area
o Free-play areas.
o Picnic areas with shelters
o Landscape and greenbelt buffer
o Large offstreet parking area
b. Swimming Pool
Definition
An indoor swimming pool facility is designed for both public and school use
for recreational, instructional, and competitive swimming, and related
water activities.
Service Radius
At the present time, a pool facility would service all the people within a
twenty minute driving distance, which now encompasses the entire park plan-
Ooo„ R. $ 3-27 O�-
C
q,I„Eq, 1 1110 ARCHITECTS
ning area. As the city grows, this radius will be reduced to a 2 to 3 mile
service radius.
Space and Number
Minimum: 2 acres per pool, one 44' x 75' outdoor pool per 15, 000-20,000
people. One indoor-outdoor pool per 40,000-50, 000 people.
Size range: 1 acre minimum; 2 acres desirable. A pool should be a minimum
size of 44' x 751.
Number: Considering the amount of freshwater beach available, the area
should have one indoor-outdoor pool with the need for a second outdoor pool
occurring within the next five years.
Desirable Improvements
o mimimum of American short course competitive pool with six racing
lanes
o diving tank with 1 one-meter board and 1 three-meter board
o dressing rooms and showers for men and women
o control area
o first aid area (combined with pool office)
o lockers
o maximum deck area for sunbathing
o pool and outside area lighting
o covered pools should have sidewalls or roof that opens to outside in
good weather
o swimmer drop-off area
o adequate off-street parking
REALIZATION OF PLANNING GOALS
The realization of Kent's park and .recreation goals depends upon the citizen's understanding
of them and his willingness to work actively toward expressing them. The implementation
of this comprehensive plan cannot be accomplished by the Board of Park Commissioners
or the park and recreation staff alone. It will require many hours of work by dedicated
citizen groups to move the plan to completion.
It may be difficult for some citizens, particularly those who have lived in the City of Kent
for many years, to feel the urgency of acquiring and developing the large amounts of open
space called for in this plan. It must continually be kept in mind that natural resources
such as open space and waterfront are fixed assets and that once developed are lost forever.,
_ One of the main purposes of this plan is to identify the open space requirements for the
City in the year 1990 and beyond. An urban development of the area around the City may
be several years in the future but one thing is certain, it will be developed.
ORB has recently completed a comprehensive park and recreation system plan for a small
city within the metropolitan Seattle area where development has occurred so fast, that
recreation sites are virtually non-existent. Those sites that are available, are very
expensive ($50,000 per acre). We estimate that this community will pay more for its —
3-28
o R s O E
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENG/NEERS
i
1
G
community center site, than the City of Kent would pay, at today's land prices, for their
entire open space acquisition program through the year 1990. However, land prices
in the Kent area will not remain constant, and as the population grows, land prices will
also rise, but at a much more rapid rate. At the present time, the citizens of Kent enjoy
a pleasant rural suburban atmosphere with large open fields and forest lands, numerous
4 trails and ample river front. As the area develops under private ownership, these
recreation and open space opportunities will ever more rapidly disappear, one by one.
P It will take a group of strong, foresighted individuals to push this plan into action and,
as is almost always the case, their payment will be only a personal knowledge of a job
well done. However, they will have a personal satisfaction at leaving a legacy of open
space and recreation opportunity for future generations yet unborn.
r
r
F
L
r
O � 3-29
t_. O
ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
l
f
f, SECTION 4 .
COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Recreation is many things to many people. It is the vigorous exercise of a ball game
and the silent contemplation of a valley sunrise. It can engage the complete attention
i
of a thousand people. It can be the solitary occupation of a single man. It can be out-
of-doors within a wonderland of the untouched wilderness of nature, or indoors within
a shelter of man's construction.
i
All in all, recreation has many facets. In order to provide the citizens of Kent with
the opportunity to find their special recreational interests it has been necessary to
study what they do or wish to do when they seek recreation. In general, they find the
age-old forms of play most gratifying: swimming, walking, bicycling, organized
games, picnicking, sightseeing, camping, hunting, and fishing. Ironically, many
of these activities were once considered work. In this report, we have used the major
forms of recreation that the people of Kent presently enjoy as the foundation for
predicting the future needs for areas and facilities.
Recreation is inseparably tied to the land and its waters. For each and every type of
activity there must be space. Some recreation activities, such as hunting, fishing,
or hiking, require open spaces with little or no development and a minimum of facilities,
save for access. Others, such as swimming, indoor sports, and organized games,
require more highly developed and expensive facilities--swimming pools, gymnasiums,
covered game areas. Some activities require particular physiographic or climatic
conditions, such as will provide slopes and snow for skiers, or warm, clean waters
for swimmers; others demand ecological communities of a specific sort such as
proper habitat for game animals and birds, so that they may thrive and be observed
or hunted.
Those activities which require special environments are limited to the localities in
which such environments exist. However, a large number of activities do not require
special site conditions and can be made available within any city in convenient or
desirable places. Swimming, indoor games, bicycle riding, picnicking, and hiking
are activities of this nature. Some activities, though they are more flexible insofar
as environment is concerned, must be located very close to the participants, if their
demands are to be met. Much of Kent recreation demand is of this type.
Recreation activities such as children's play in their own backyards, or a game of
croquet at the neighbor's are not of the sort that require the services of a planner, or
the assistance of the City even though this type of activity may total many, many hours
and could be converted into a multitude of activity days, user days, and other statistical
units. The recreation activities provided for and considered by this report are those
which require larger areas and facilities than those the individual home owner can
economically provide. The Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan presented
ti .
O
4-1 RS
0
� oo„ „,�„E„, .I„„ono ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
in this report is based on a thorough analysis of the Kent community and has recom-
mended guide-line standards which are unique to your City. ,
Other sections of this report discuss the recreation needs of the community, inventory
the existing recreation facilities, study the physiographic and climatic conditions,
consider the social-economic and environmental factors, and discuss the park and
recreation standards which are significant to the Kent Park Planning Area. This
Section of the report analyzes and recommends specific acquisition and development
goals for the City of Kent. These goals have been established to satisfy not only
the present park and recreation needs but to provide a guide for future development
of the park and recreation facilities for many years to come.
In the final instance, the implementation of this plan is properly the responsibility
of the City's Park Board and the City Council. Only they, through policy and budgetary
decisions, can assure that the recommendations for acquisition, development, staffing
and operations become a reality.
The capital improvement program presented in Section 5 of this report was prepared
-- under the guidance of the Park Board. This capital improvement plan outlines the
specific acquisition and development goals of the City for the next 6-year period. It
indicates specific improvements, the priority to be given each, and the proposed
source of funding. Every effort has been made by ORB to consider not only the
available local monies, but also the best available sources of state and federal
matching funds. We have given the highest priority to those areas of the City most
likely to develop first. Thus, the areas with the highest "use benefit ratio" have
received the highest priority. High priority has also been recommended for that
property which is of a unique nature and must be acquired to complete the proposed _
River Front Park System.
THE KENT OPEN SPACE CONCEPT
Before proceeding into the detailed recommendations of this study, we would like
to discuss the overall open space concept conceived for the City of Kent.
In the ideal urban plan, an open space network of large, natural parks and continuous
green belts separate the areas of intense development from those of less intense use.
Greenbelts and open space may also provide natural buffers between the various
communities of the municipal area. In a sense, the open space areas are used as a
method of land use control. Open space areas may vary from vast natural reserves
to trails or neighborhood recreation areas, and may provide a wide range of recreation
opportunity; but whatever the use, be it active or passive, they also give visual
relief to the busy urban landscape. They develop a sense of character to the community
and provide a restful retreat where the city dweller can commune with nature.
O R 3M ARCHITECTS 4-2
o« C ITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
r- Using the standards developed in this report we can compare the existing park
property to the required property. The open space requirement for the present
population is approximately 968 acres. Looking ahead to 1990, this requirement
( increases to a total of approximately 1769 acres. At the time the Kent Park Planning
4 Area is fully developed, it will require approximately 3310 acres of park land. It
is crucial that the City set aside land for open space well before it is needed, since
F it is difficult if not impossible to recreate natural beauty once urbanization has taken
place. The question, of course, is how far in advance should the various agencies
acquire the land and how much should they acquire?
ORB has conceived an overall open space concept for the City of Kent, which extends
well beyond the boundaries of the City and places strong emphasis on one of Kent's
greatest recreation assets--the Green River. Our plan calls for the acquisition of
separate individual parcels by both the City and the County to create a total open space
system. Since the area within the City Limits is developing rapidly, the utilization
of continuous open space systems and green belts is more difficult, if not impossible,
to achieve. What is possible, however, is the acquisition and development of a series
of needed neighborhood, community and urban park and recreation facilities, linked to
f each other by a common trail system. Such a trail system would assure easy access
by foot or bicycle to each park and recreation facility.
Such a system would also provide a wide range of recreational opportunity close to
each resident. Reviewing the ORB plan, one can see that the existing City and County
owned land gives the open space concept an excellent start. The existing Interurban
Railway right-of-way runs north and south through the Valley floor and has recently
been opened as a public trail. Mill Creek Canyon Urban Park provides an excellent
trail from the downtown area to the East Hill; and a bicycle route has been established
along the Green River between the Kent-Des Moines road and the northern City Limits.
Later, as the proposed Riverfront Park System becomes a reality, this trail can be
relocated off the roadway and onto the riverfront property. Additionally, several
large power line right-of-ways cut across the East Hill area and onto the Valley floor,
and a portion has already been incorporated into the trail system. There are also
several other natural drainage courses, such as Garrison Creek, which should be added
to the major urban parks and trail system to tie the park and recreation system
together. We feel that the City Park and Recreation Department is developing an
excellent trail system by reaching agreements with the power companies and land-
owners at a very modest initial investment. The King County Park and Recreation
Department and a private group called Recreation and Trails Unlimited are presently
negotiating similar agreements in the County which can be tied into the Kent trail
system. The County has designated the Green River Trail as one of its very highest
priority trails and anticipates funding in 1973.
4-3
O O
osa q ,C„. q, ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
There will no doubt be many in the City who feel the establishment of publicly-owned
open space on the scale suggested in this report to be excessive. We are aware that
present development of the City will leave large areas of the County as a rural open
space for some time to come. However, private ownership of the prime Green River
sites will occur at a much more rapid rate, thus the Riverfront System should
be given a high priority.
Saturation will, of course, not happen for many years in the future; however, the
City cannot afford to wait until it occurs to implement its open space program. This
is the first Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan to be prepared by the
City of Kent and represents their first overall look at their future park system.
The Park Board should aim at a positive solution to tomorrow's recreation and open
space needs. Future Boards can periodically review standards adopted in this plan
and can modify them downward if the population and development projections used
in this report have been too optimistic. If, on the other hand, the standards and goals
are too conservative, the City may never be able to acquire the required open space.
The open space around the City is a fixed asset--once gone it is lost forever. It
must be remembered that we are concerned not only with the availability of open
space, but with the location as well. Park and recreation property must not only
provide the proper environmental quality and aesthetic appeal, but it must be located
so that the public can easily use it.
The open space concept conceived in this plan will take many years to achieve, but
it will never be accomplished without the establishment of ambitious goals and the
dedication of an inspired citizenry.
4-4
O R � ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS,ENGINEERS
O
o ° a;
cdo OON 1 00 0 � � 000 �-
f P O t- L GV O L L I O O C- ti r-I O ri L- ftS
O LO LO Co O+ 00 LO M m (D
w 0
o w cd
� rn 0 ai4 a
A v a c� c� m O c%l c%l 1 00 0 0 o m o m cal
0 o 0 0 00 0 0 O I LO a �r �r co 0 co o �4 cd
pi .0 cal cq GV 00 GV GV I GV O 00 C- ca a 0.
�
LO o �
w00o
x bb
W � a� (D
�4
a) 0~ 4�
H W 1✓ a 0 0 0 0 O 1 e� N Iv 00 0 00 O a)
ri ri LIB d+ r i ri I LC� LV N Gil Co r-I RS
UCD ra ,-1 O O 4� cd
Q
fs1 � p .0 ••
r R7
z � a
N � zw w
z ~ E1 m I 1 1 N r W ,� E-+ ,.._, a) N C-1
UZ r i oo O O I O ri 1 I ,-1 M d+ O O
F� U �N Lc� co ,-+ r� d+ I m zs 1 I C11 �
o A p'' w y cz `""'
o z x -, a)
�? m 0
0 bA x
F-1 N cd
0 0 ^ cd
a z o 0 ��. O O LCJ Lf� 0 0 0 O U P.
a A - •� Ln LO Ln o Lc� o LO o . 0 c
O W Z a) cli cV c J O cal cal O O r�-1 , q c"V 0 �'� O
0 �l 4 � tin
W Z o o cd
.,
a) ctl
� bb.O
to fU ..-� cd
A cd 0 f+ N 0 ¢ Q. 1 bA 0
a�
° U ° 0 m o 0) ocd cd n
o4� o a) O a) W cd s~
i-+ cd --' O p cd U M bn 0 cd
y a o o �a m CIS a{ � m o �o 7v
w N o
O
4 bO -- • 4
a) .� Acd N U o 0 � a U a) .Q p 0
a rya
W �bl) A o ° cma U GG �, p �+ ai I
oo '� '>o, o 'o �, ,,� s~ s~ �° o 0 0 o cd F 0 0
FI p � zUGi � NC3 c y N � rn � 4-4
w AUAa 1�
hHHHA v 4-4
O M 4-5
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Introduction
Most park planning concepts divide a community into a number of study areas with
specific physical boundaries, these study areas are called neighborhoods. Thus the
neighborhood concept becomes the basic planning element around which most cities
develop their physical park and recreational facilities.
The neighborhood is a service oriented residential area in which the residents share
a mutual need and desire for social, cultural, recreational and educational activities.
In most communities, the neighborhood is an area served by an elementary school.
Determination of Neighborhood Planning Areas
Neighborhood size and make-up varies depending on the population density, but in
single family residential areas, it should be no more than one-half mile square.
Neighborhoods should not be crossed by arterials carrying heavy traffic streams,
railroads or other natural or manmade barriers. One of the most important charac-
teristics of a neighborhood is that residents have easy walking access to the recrea-
tion areas.
In most urban communities, a 5 to 8 acre school playground provides for the active
recreation of children from five to fourteen years of age. In an ideal neighborhood, a
neighborhood park should be located next to the school playground to provide passive
and semi-active recreation for the neighborhood's older teenagers and adults. This
neighborhood park and playground area, like the elementary school, is within walking
distance of each home within the neighborhood.
Each neighborhood will vary as to population, but 2,500 is about the minimum size
which will support a neighborhood park; neighborhoods with a population greater than
5,000 become too large for a park to be within easy walking distance of the residents.
Physical features such as streams, steep slopes, and railroads greatly affect people's
everyday behavior. These features often act as barriers, channeling people along the
terrain. These barriers help to define natural neighborhood boundaries.
Zoning and land-use plans have a tremendous effect on the channelization of future
development. We have utilized the Comprehensive Plan 1988, East Hill Plan, and the
Kent Sphere of Interest report in the prediction of the Kent area's future neighborhoods.
the decisions on the neighborhood boundaries were made ,jointly by ORB and the Kent
Departments of Planning and of Parks and Recreation. Future changes in zoning or
planned land-use may require modification of the neighborhood boundaries.
4-6
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
I
Existing neighborhood boundaries were determined for the Kent Park Planning Area on
the basis of the existing population densities and land use. These neighborhood areas
are shown in Figure 2-1. Many of these existing neighborhoods are larger than a normal
► neighborhood area, particularly on the East Hill. In fact, many of these East Hill neigh-
' borhood areas will require automobile travel to reach a neighborhood center. At the
present time such travel is not considered a hardship as the area is sparsely developed, i
roads are not overly crowded and travel time is short. Many children are presently
bussed or driven to school, .trips to the local shopping area are frequent, and are an
accepted way of life. Thus, access to neighborhood centers in these large neighborhood
areas will not pose particularly challenging problems to the residents.
However, in future years, as these East Hill areas become more densely populated, as
the number of streets with traffic lights increases, and as more shopping centers,
housing and other community facilities are developed, travel will become more difficult.
In addition, the increased population will require more parkland and more schools. In
order to accommodate these results of development, smaller neighborhood areas will
be required. Figure 2-2 illustrates our projection of what the Kent Park Planning Area
neighborhood areas will look like when 100% saturation is reached (that is, when all the
land within the planning area is developed). Figure 2-2 is crystall ball gazing at best,
but it does serve to give the Park Department a clearer view of the future and, hopefully,
the Department will come closer to meeting the future demand than if it blindly acquires
land here and there as some local group points out an apparent need. All park lands
4 and recreation areas in Figure 2-2 are only schematically located. No attempt has
been made to specifically locate these areas as this would be premature and lead to
price speculation. It is a rare neighborhood or community which cannot find more than
one suitable site for such facilities.
Since many of these future neighborhoods within the larger existing neighborhoods may
develop faster than others (See Table 2-3), priorities for acquisition and development
of Future Neighborhood Centers can be determined. For example, Existing Neighborhood
M is expected to develop into Future Neighborhoods 16, 23, 24, 29, 30 and a portion of
13. The population of Existing Neighborhood M is presently 4, 350 people. This is 19%
of the anticipated population of this neighborhood when it becomes completely developed.
By 1990, Neighborhood M is expected to be developed to 41 per cent of the saturation
population.
If we look at the Future Neighborhood Population and Saturation (Table 2-3), we find that
Neighborhood 16 has the highest saturation population at 35% with other neighborhoods
being less than half that densely populated. By 1990, Future Neighborhood 16 will reach
some 48 per cent of saturation with Neighborhood 13 at 55% of saturation and Neighborhood
30 at 45% of saturation. Thus, Neighborhoods 13 and 16 become the first priority for
acquisition of Neighborhood Parks in this area with Future Neighborhood 30 close behind.
Since at the present time the entire population of Neighborhood M requires only one park,
Neighborhood 16 becomes the first priority for acquisition.
O
oI soH p,�„Ea , .,I„ono ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
Acquisition and Development of Neighborhood Areas
As the City grows in population and the open space land around the City disappears,
the neighborhood park and recreation center will take on an added significance. It
will become the center for after school and evening play and should be located ad-
jacent to or near the neighborhood elementary school. On weekends and holidays,
families will utilize it in groups. In some neighborhoods, it might become a center of
activity for the senior citizens groups. There will be many differences between the
various neighborhoods and these differences should be considered at the time a develop-
ment program is initiated. The Park Department should utilize the results of the ORB
survey and should involve the people of the neighborhood in the writing of the design
criteria. They should ask that the park designer make periodic presentations during
the design to assure the neighborhood a functional facility designed to meet their needs.
The recommended standard for the acquisition of neighborhood parks is a 6-acre park
for the City's smaller neighborhoods (2,500 population). This standard calls for a
9-acre park for the average-sized neighborhood (3,400 population) and a 12-acre park
for the larger neighborhoods (4,800 population). When located next to the neighborhood
elementary school, the school playground may be considered a part of the 12-acre park
acreage requirement. The acquisition of neighborhood parks calls for a common sense
appraisal of the specific property as to its location, ease of access, cost of acquisition,
make-up of neighborhood, population, site, physiography. environmental characteristics,
and other relevent factors. Obviously, property which has steep slopes or swampy ground is
of less value as a neighborhood park than property which is relatively flat and well-
drained. In actual practice a site which has a combination of both flat or gently rolling
terrain, and rugged or special interest terrain, may be most desirable as a neighbor-
hood park. The following criteria will serve as rule-of-thumb guidelines for the selec-
tion of neighborhood park property. Since smaller neighborhood parks require different
treatment than that of larger neighborhood parks, we have discussed the criteria for
small, medium and large parks.
a. Small Neighborhood Parks (6-acre)
A small neighborhood park should commit a higher percentage of the ground area
to active high-use activities than a larger site. The following basic facilities
should be provided in each neighborhood:
Active High-use Area: 3.5 acres
This area should be flat or gently rolling, relatively free from vegetation or man-
made obstructions which cannot be easily cleared.
0 open area for free play, sand lot ball; no organized sports
o childrens' play area
o water-oriented activity
o paved game court
o senior citizens area --
0 off-street parking
O ME � 4-8 O _
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
i
Passive Area: 2. 5 acres
This area may have rough topography or heavy natural vegetation. In fact, it
is usually desirable for it to have special features such as rock outcrops, steep
banks, viewpoints, or other qualities which will give the site character and
interest.
o natural area
t' o trails
o picnic areas
F b. Medium Neighborhood Parks (9-acre)
A medium neighborhood park should provide the following minimum areas:
Active High-use Area: 5. 0 acres
This area should be a flat or gently rolling area, relatively free from vegetation
or man-made obstructions which cannot be easily cleared..
o softball, multi-purpose and free-play areas
o childrens' play area
o water-oriented activity
o paved game court
o senior citizens area
o neighborhood center building
0 off-street parking
Passive Area: 4. 0 acres
This area may have rough topography or heavy natural vegetation. In fact, it is
usually desirable for it to have special features such as rock outcrops, steep
banks, viewpoints, or other qualities which will give the site character and interest.
When located adjacent to an elementary school the school playground may provide
for part of the above acreage requirement.
o natural area
o trails
o picnic areas
o special interest areas
c. Large Neighborhood Parks (12-acre)
A large neighborhood park should commit a larger percentage of the ground area
to the natural features of the site than is possible in a small park. When located
adjacent to an elementary school, the school playground may provide for part of
the above acreage requirement. The following should be minimally included:
Active High-use Area: 7.0 acres
This area should be flat or gently rolling, relatively free from vegetation or
man-made obstructions which cannot be easily cleared.
4-9
O I ENGINEERS O
o s 0 1p,I„E q 7 a,�„o n o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•
o softball and multi-purpose fields
0 open area for free play
o children's play area
o water-oriented activity
o paved game area
o neighborhood center building
o senior citizens area
Passive Area: 5.0 acres
This area may have rough topography or heavy natural vegetation. In fact, it is
usually desirable for it to have special features such as rock outcrops, steep
banks, viewpoints, or other qualities which will give the site character and interest.
o natural greenbelt area for buffer
o trails
o picnic area
o nature and science study area
o special interest features
Evaluation of Neighborhood Facilities
The following is an evaluation of the, existing public-owned neighborhood park and
recreation facilities. The facilities are evaluated by existing neighborhood planning
areas. The organization of existing and future neighborhoods and the population data are
taken from "Demographic Characteristics" in Section 2. Figure 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate
the neighborhood boundaries. Figure 2-3 illustrates public-owned properties and Figure
4-1 illustrates park and school facilities in the Kent area.
The conclusions of the following evaluation of the neighborhood park and recreation facilities
are summarized in Table 4-1. The first column indicates the existing neighborhood plan-
ning areas. The second column indicates the future neighborhoods that will constitute the
existing neighborhood areas at saturation. The third column shows the park planning area
park and recreation land acquisition priority for each future neighborhood area. The last
column lists the park planning area park and recreation facility development priority
of the existing neighborhood planning areas.
The format of the evaluation below is similar to Table 4-1. The same information is
listed for each of the existing neighborhood planning areas. First, basic demographic
data are listed. Then all of the existing public park and recreation lands in the planning
area are listed. Third, the Kent Park Planning Area priority for acquisition of land is
listed for each of the future neighborhoods which will make up the existing neighborhood _
planning area at saturation. Fourth, the Kent Park Planning Area priority for develop-
ment of park and recreation facilities is listed. Fifth is a remarks section briefly commen-
ting on the priority selections.
O MR0 :M 4-10
A ._. E A r ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O r ,
R
Table 4-2
, . II
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND RECREATION LAND
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
Existing Future Priority for Existing Future Priority for
Neighborhood Neighborhood(a)'Ac�c. Dev. Neighborhood Neighborhood(a) Acq. Dev.
A 8 0 low N 7
17 0
r B 4 22 0
1 4
2 5 O 9
3 2 18 7
19 16
C 4 0 2 20 6
21 20
D 7 1 3 22 0
E 6 0 low P 8
31 13
F 5 3 6 32 11
33 19
G 11 0 none 39 22
20 6
H 10 0 5 21 20
I 9 0 none Q 13
34 low
J 15 0 low 35 low
36 low
K 14 0 1 37 14
38 low
L 12
12 21 R 10
25 low 28 8
26 18 40 low
13 10 41 low
M 11 S 14
16 9 27 15
23 low 42 low
24 17
29 low
30 12
13 10
(a) Portions of underlined future neighborhoods are in two different existing neighborhoods.
R O �& (:�o
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
a. Neighborhood Planning Area A
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 1500/43%; 1990 - 2500/71%; Saturation - 3500/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Grandview Park - 30 acres
Grandview Elementary School - 8 acres
Acquisition priority : None required
Development priority : Low
Remarks: This area has been designated future neighborhood 8, as it is already 43%
developed and we do not believe the neighborhood boundaries will change in the
future, and therefore only one neighborhood park will be required. Since the estima-
ted saturation population is 3500, standards require a 9-acre park. Although there
are presently no neighborhood parks here, the 30-acre county Grandview Park and
the playground at Grandview Elementary School seem adequate to service the area.
No additional neighborhood park property is required.
b. Neighborhood Planning Area B
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 3800/42%; 1990 - 6300/ 70%; Saturation - 9000/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Highline Community College - 80 acres
_ Parkside Elementary School - 12 acres
Woodmont Elementary School - 9. 5 acres
Acquisition Priority: Neighborhood one : fourth; Neighborhood two: fifth; Neighbor-
hood three: second.
Development priority: fourth
Remarks: This area has been designated future neighborhoods 1,2, and 3. While
the overall saturation is presently 42% with the future neighborhoods ranging from
40 to 44%, the 1990 overall saturation is expected to jump to 70% with the future
neighborhoods ranging from 62 to 80%. It is unlikely that suitable park land will
be available in 1990. There are presently grade schools serving future neighbor-
hoods 1 and 2. While these elementary school playgrounds and the open space and
natural areas at the Highline Community College campus are adequate for existing
Neighborhood B, they will not suffice for the future. Future neighborhood 3 is
presently well developed and will reach 80% saturation by 1990. A small 6-acre
park should be acquired to supplement the open space of the campus area. Ideally
it would be located adjacent to the campus. Future neighborhood 1 will also develop
4-12
ARCH/TECTS•PLANNERS•ENG/NEERS
O
b. Neighborhood Planning Area B (Continued)
rapidly in the next two years and a 6-acre park should be located in this area also.
The last park to be purchased in this neighborhood should be a 9-acre site in
future neighborhood 2 to supplement the school playgrounds located here. 1
1 c. Neighborhood Planning Area C
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 1100/31%; 1990 - 1000/ 85%; saturation - 3500/ 100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Midway Park - 15 acres
Acquisition priority: None required
Development priority: second
Remarks: Although there is presently some residential housing north of Midway
Park in this neighborhood, it is largely zoned commercial and we expect the resi-
dential population in this area to diminish in the future. Therefore, only the portion
south of Midway Park has been designated future neighborhood 4. With a saturation
population of 3500, this area requires a 9-acre park. Although the 15-acre park
site is presently a sanitary land fill, it is expected to be filled and developed in
1974 in accordance with the Master Plan prepared by ORB in 1970. No additional
neighborhood park property need be purchased in this area.
d. Neighborhood Planning Area D
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 2600/ 50%; 1990 - 3300/ 64%; saturation - 5200/100%•
Existing park and recreation land:
Sunny Crest Elementary School - 11 acres
Linda Heights Park - 4 acres
Kent Highlands Park - 21 acres.
Acquisition priority: first
Development priority: third
Remarks: This neighborhood is 50% saturated and has been designated future neigh-
borhood 7, With a saturation population of 5200, this area requires a 12-acre neigh-
borhood park. Kent Highlands Park is presently a sanitary landfill which is scheduled
to be ready for development in 1977. Although this site is very near this neighbor-
hood, the site is not located to serve it well, and should be considered a community
4-14
R - _
o s O
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
d. Neighborhood Planning Area D (Continued)
facility. The school playground and the small, undeveloped tot lot are a start
towards fulfilling these requirements, but acquisition of a true neighborhood
facility is an obvious necessity. The high state of development and the high anti-
cipated population of this area places such an acquisition on high priority. Figure _
2-3 and Table 2-9 show that public-owned land does exist at sites 2-3-1-, 4-2-1,
and 5-2-1. It might be possible to convert this land to a suitable neighborhood
park.
e. Neighborhood Planning Area E
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 2600/ 54%; 1990 - 3500/ 73%; saturation - 4800/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Lake Fenwick Park - 47 acres
Glenn Nelson Park - 10 acres
Star Lake Elementary School - 5 acres
Totem Junior High School - 20 acres
Acquisition priority: None required
Development priority: Low
Remarks: This neighborhood has reached 54% of complete development and has
- been designated future neighborhood 6. A saturation population of 4800 calls for
12 acres of neighborhood park land. The elementary school playground, recently
developed Glenn Nelson Park and recently acquired Lake Fenwick Park will serve
this area very adequately.
f. Neighborhood Planning Area F
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 1100/ 27%; 1990 - 3300/ 80%; saturation - 4100/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Thomas Jefferson Senior High School - 40 acres
Acquisition priority: third
Development priority: sixth
Remarks: This area has been designated future neighborhood 5. With a saturation
population of 4100, it will require 9 - 12 acres of neighborhood park land. With
only the senior high school land available, provision must be made for a park and
O 4-15
s o I A I_.E R 1 8 1 G.,o L o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O ��
r
f. Neighborhood Planning Area F
children's playgrounds. Perhaps some future use could be made of the state lands
r" and gravel mining areas on the eastern edge of this neighborhood. The anticipated
explosive development of this area makes land acquisition a very high priority.
Figure 2-3 and Table 2-9 indicate that public-owned land exists at sites 4-3-30,
t 4-3-31, and 9-6-1 . These might be future possibilities for a neighborhood park
site in this area.
g g. Neighborhood Planning Area G
Population: 1971 - 1000; 1990 - 500; saturation not calculated.
f
Existing park and recreation land:
Thomas School - 7 acres
Acquisition priority: None required
Development priority: None required
Remarks: This area is presently very sparsely populated and is dedicated to agri-
culture and industry. The resident population is expected to decrease as the area
industrializes. No neighborhood facilities are anticipated in this area.
h. Neighborhood Planning Area H
Population/ % saturation:1971 - 1100/ 41%; 1990 - 1800/ 67%; saturation - 2700/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Russel Road Park and Athletic Field - 34 acres
Acquisition priority : None required
Development priority: fifth
Remarks: This area is also future neighborhood 10. Development of this neigh-
borhood is fairly well along at 41% of saturation population. This neighborhood
should have a 6-acre park. Russel Road Park, while not a true neighborhood park
with its athletic fields, playgrounds, and park area, should more than fulfill the
requirements of this small neighborhood.
4-16
ME S =
COO O
.,.„o 1. ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
i. Neighborhood Planning Area I
Population: 1971 - 1500; 1990 - 700. Saturation not calculated.
Existing park and recreation land:
O'Brien Elementary School
Acquisition priority: None required
Development priority: None required
Remarks: This area has a low population density and is dedicated to agriculture and
industry. The resident population is expected to further decrease as the area
industrializes. No neighborhood parks are anticipated in this area.
j. Neighborhood Planning Area J
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 3600/ 76%; 1990 - 3800/ 80%; saturation - 4700/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Kent Memorial Park - 11. 0 acres
Kiwanis North Park - 0. 5 acres
Kiwanis Tot Lot No. 1 - 0. 5 acres
Kiwanis Tot Lot No. 5 - 0.4 acres
Milwaukee Playfield - 2. 3 acres
Senior Citizen Hall
Naden Park - 0. 3 acres
Kent Elementary School - 3. 5 acres
Kent Junior High School - 11.0 acres
Acquisition priority: None required
Development priority; Low
Remarks: The downtown core of Kent has been designated future neighborhood
15. This area is presently highly developed at 76% of the predicted saturation
population of 4700. This population calls for a 12-acre neighborhood park. Kent
Memorial Park and the sprinkling of Tot Lots are well located to serve the central.
and northern portions of this neighborhood. Although the southern portion has no =
parks, it is largely zoned industrial. No additional neighborhood parks are
anticipated in this neighborhood.
4-17
O ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
,-;
r
i
k. Neighborhood Planning Area K
i
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 2500/ 52%; 1990 - 4000/ 83%; saturation -4800/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Alvord Park - 1 acre
Mill Creek Canyon Park - 100 acres
Alexander Park - 1 acre
Scenic Hill Park - 4 acres
Scenic Hill Elementary School - 10 acres
Acquisition priority: None required
Development priority: first
Remarks: The Scenic Hill area is designated future neighborhood 14. The 4800 sa-
turation population calls for a 12-acre park. While the existing Scenic Hill Park
is small, the Tot Lot, school playground, and the 3 to 4 acre flat area in Mill Creek
Canyon Park north of Woodland Way across from Scenic Hill Park can all be utilized
for neighborhood parks. These areas combined with the 100-acre Mill Creek Can-
yon Park would seem adequate to serve the area.
I
1. Neighborhood Planning Area L
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 2150/ 18%; 1990 - 4800/ 40%; saturation -11, 900/
100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Pine Tree Elementary School - 13 acres
Acquisition Priority: neighborhood twelve: twentieth; neighborhood twenty-five
low; neighborhood twenty-six : seventeenth; neighborhood thirteen : tenth
Development priority: twelfth
Remarks: This large, sparsely populated area is almost entirely outside the
present City Limits. The area has been designated future neighborhoods 12, 25,
26, and a portion of 13. These areas presently range from 12 to 17% saturation
and will increase to from 41 to 55% by 1990. Neighborhood 13 will develop the
fastest and this should be the first portion of Neighborhood L in which to acquire
a 9 to 12 acre park. The other portions of neighborhood L should develop much
more slowly. A second 9-acre neighborhood park should be acquired in neigh-
borhood 26, preferably in conjunction with Pine Tree Elementary School. A park
in this location could serve future neighborhoods 12 and 25 as well until approxi-
mately 1990. By 1985 - 1990, a 9-acre park should be acquired in neighborhood
4-18 ;
oXWoO
1 "s o, .,1„o L o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
1. Neighborhood Planning Area L (Continued)
12. The last priority for development is a 9-acre park in neighborhood 25 as it
will develop-much more slowly.
in. Neighborhood Planning Area M
Population/ % saturation : 1971 - 4350/19%; 1990 - 9200/41%; saturation 22,600/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Mill Creek Canyon Park - 100 acres
Triangle Park - 7 acres
East Hill Community Hall - 0. 5 acres
East Hill Elementary School - 9 acres
Kent Meridian Senior High School - 40 acres
Sequoia Junior High School - 20 acres
Acquisition priority:neighborhood sixteen: ninth; neighborhood twenty-three: low;
neighborhood twenty-four : seventeenth; neighborhood twenty-nine: low; neighborhood
thirty : twelfth; neighborhood thirteen: tenth
Development priority: eleventh
Remarks: This is another large, sparsely populated neighborhood almost entirely
in the unincorporated area of the County. This area has been designated future
neighborhoods 16, 23, 24, 29, 30 and a portion of 13. These areas presently range
from 12 to 35% saturation. By 1990 they will range from 32 to 55% and the popu-
lations will range from 3500 to 5000. Neighborhood 16 is presently the most de-
veloped and a 9 to 12 acre park should be acquired here first. Neighborhood 13
is predicted to develop the most rapidly, so this area should also have a high pri-
ority for the acquisition of a 9-12 acre site. Neighborhood 13 is discussed under
"Neighborhood Planning Area "N". Neighborhood 30 will be developing concurrent-
ly with neighborhood 13, therefore a 12-acre park should also be provided here at
about the same time. Neighborhood 24 is the next most rapidly growing area and
a 12-acre park should go here. The fifth park in this area will be a 12-acre site in
neighborhood 23. The last neighborhood park in this area should be a 9-acre park in 29.
n. Neighborhood Planning Area N
Population/ % saturation:1971 - 2000/26%; 1990 - 4200/54%; saturation - 7775/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
James Street Water Tower Park - 2 acres
Garrison Creek Park - 5 acres —
4-19
OXWo O 0 L 5 0 N n i c e., .I��. �o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
r
f .
i
n. Neighborhood Planning Area N (Continued)
Existing park and recreation land (Cont.)
East Hill Community Hall - 0. 5 acres
Park Orchard Elementary School - 13 acres
King County Neighborhood Park No. 3 - 5 acres
King County Neighborhood Park No. 5 - 5 acres
Acquisition priority: None required
F
Development priority: seventh
r Remarks: This sparsely populated area is future neighborhood 17 and a portion of
22. The population of this area will double by 1990 and eventually develop to almost
8000. Both future neighborhoods have the same population data: 1971 - 1000/23%;
1990 - 2100/ 48%; and saturation - 4400/ 100%. James Street Park and the East
Hill Community Hall are not particularly usable for neighborhood parkland. Gar-
rison Creek Park is presently being developed on a very steep natural site, using
the top of the existing reservoir for playing surface, but the playground area is
very limited; it lies across a deep ravine and access is difficult, and it is located
at the extreme end of neighborhood 17. Although King County neighborhood parks
3 and 5 are undersized for these neighborhoods, the parks are well located and no
further neighborhood park land need be acquired.
o. Neighborhood Planning Area O
I
Population/%saturation: 1971 - 3150/23%; 1990 - 6250/45%; saturation -13,775/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Garrison Creek Park - 5 acres
Springbrook Elementary School - 10 acres
Panther Lake Elementary School - 11 acres
Acquisition priority: neighborhood eighteen : seventh; neighborhood nineteen: six-
teenth; neighborhood twenty : sixth; neighborhood twenty-one : twentieth; neighbor-
hood twenty-two : none required
Development priority: ninth
Remarks: The population in this area will double by 1990. This areawill develop
into future neighborhoods 18 and 19, and portions of 20, 21, and 22. The popula-
tions of these neighborhoods range from 600 to 1300 with densities from 17 to 33%
in 1971. By 1990 they will range from 1600 to 3100 and from 44 to 62%. Neigh-
borhood 18 will be served by Garrison Creek Park (an evaluation of Garrison Creek
Park is above in "Neighborhood Planning Area 11011). The rest of 18 and all of 19 are
4-20
Co R '~,
1 o I o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
o. Neighborhood Planning Area O (Continued)
served only by the playground facilities at the schools. There are no recreation
faciliites within neighborhoods 20 and 21, and 22 contains King County neighborhood
park number five. Since neighborhood 20 is the most populous, will develop the
fastest, and presently has no facilities, a 12-acre park should be acquired here.
An additional 6-acre park should be acquired to serve area 18 as it is presently
the most developed. Neighborhoods 19 and 21 will be developing next most rapidly.
A 12-acre park should go in 19 first to serve the larger population and then a 9-
acre facility to serve 21. No parkland is needed in 22.
p. Neighborhood Planning Area P
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 3250/20%; 1990 - 9250/ 56%; saturation 16,650/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Soos Creek Regional Park - 350 acres
Kentridge Senior High - 43 acres
Soos Creek Elementary - 10 acres
Meridian Junior High School - 20 acres
Acquisition priority: neighborhood thirty-one: thirteenth; neighborhood thirty-two:
eleventh; neighborhood thirty-three:nineteenth; neighborhood thirty-nine: twenty-
second; neighborhood twenty: sixth; neighborhood twenty-one: twentieth
Development priority: eighth
Remarks: The population of this area is expected to increase by 180% by 1990. It
consists of future neighborhoods 31, 32, 33, 39 and portions of 20 and 21. The
present populations range from 400 to 1800 with 16 to 26% saturation. The 1990
populations range from 1600 to 3100 and 46% to 64% saturation. Although Soos
Creek Park will maintain a great deal of natural area along the eastern edge of
neighborhood P, it is by nature and design a regional park and will not fulfill
neighborhood functions. Therefore, the only other available recreation facilities
are on the school playgrounds. Neighborhood 20 is presently the most saturated
with the highest population, therefore the first neighborhood park acquisition should
be here as detailed under "Neighborhood Planning Area O" above. The second park
should be 6 acres, located in Neighborhood 32. Neighborhood 31 has similar popu-
lation data to 32 but probably will develop somewhat more slowly because of the
large amount of state land in 31. The third park should therefore be another 6 acre
site in 31. Area 33 will also be developing rapidly but a 9-acre site should be
acquired to supplement the facilities at the two schools and at Soos Creek Park.
Future neighborhood 21 will develop next most rapidly and the fifth park should be
a 9-acre one in this area. The last park site acquired should be another 9-acre
park in neighborhood 39. Figure 2-3 and Table 2-9 indicate large tracts of state —
land at sites 4-3-39 and 4-3-40.
4-21
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
q. Neighborhood Planning Area Q
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 2900/17%; 1990 - 6800/40%; saturation - 16, 900/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Lake Youngs Elementary School - 10 acres
t Soos Creek Regional Park - 350 acres
Acquisition py g riorit neighborhood thirty-seven: fourteenth; neighborhoods thirty-four,
thirty-five, thirty-six, and thirty-eight : low
- i
Development priority: thirteen
r
i
Remarks: The population of this area will increase 130% by 1990. It is expected to
become future neighborhoods 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38; present populations range from
500 to 700 with saturation ranging from 14% to 19%. By 1990, the range will be
1300 to 1600 and 37% to 46%. Neighborhood 37 presently has the highest population
and saturation and will be the highest in 1990. Neighborhood 37 has no recreation
faciliites other than Soos Creek, which has the neighborhood limitations detailed
t in "Neighborhood Planning Area P" above. Therefore, the first park acquisition
could be a 9-acre park in neighborhood 37. Priority decisions on the 9-acre parks
required for all of the other areas should be deferred until the development patterns
become more critical.
r. Neighborhood Planning Area R
Population/% saturation: 1971 - 2500/21%; 1990 - 4800/ 41%; saturation 11, 700/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
Soos Creek Regional Park - 350 acres
Lake Meridian Park - 60 acres
Meridian Elementary School - 10 acres
Acquisition priority: neighborhood twenty-eight: eighth; neighborhoods forty and
forty-one• low
Development priority: tenth
Remarks: The population of this neighborhood planning area will increase 90% by
1990. The area is made up of future neighborhoods 28, 40, and 41. Their present
populations range from 600 to 1300 and saturation ranges from 15 to 33%. By 1990
this range will be from 1300 to 1600 and 34 to 41%. Neighborhood 28 is the most
developed and the most populous; a 9-acre park should be located near the school
to provide best access. Lake Meridian and Soos Creek Parks are not well located to
serve area 28, and both of these regional parks have the limitations outlined in
4-22
O O
a,G N o I o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS ENGINEERS
r. Neighborhood Planning Area R (Continued)
"Neighborhood Planning Area P" above. Neighborhood 40 will show a 170% population
increase by 1990 and a 9-12 acre facility should be located in this neighborhood.
This area presently has no neighborhood facilities serving it. With so much of the
_ area of neighborhood 41 now taken for Soos Creek Park, the projected population
figures from Table 2-3 are probably high, thus a 6-acre neighborhood park would
be adequate for this area.
s. Neighborhood Planning Area S
Population/ % saturation: 1971 - 1200/16%; 1990 - 2900/ 40%; saturation - 7300/100%.
Existing park and recreation land:
None
Acquisition priority: neighborhood twenty-seven: fifteenth; neighborhood forty-two :
low
Development priority: fourteenth
Remarks: The population of this area will increase 140% by 1990. The area
consists of future neighborhoods 27 and 42. Both populations are presently 600
with approximately 15% saturation, and will develop to around 1500 with 40% satu-
ration by 1990. Since both areas have similar population and location character-
istics, and both have no present facilities, the priority of acquisition will depend
upon the opportunities. However, because of the proximity of Lake Meridian Park
to neighborhood 42, it is preferable that a 9-acre park be acquired in future neigh-
borhood 27 to serve both neighborhoods until development warrents the acquisition
of another 9-acre park in the other neighborhood.
4-23
0O R � ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
O ��
COMMUNITY PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Introduction
Just as park planning concepts divide a city into neighborhood planning areas, served
by neighborhood parks and recreation facilities, these same concepts also divide the
f city into somewhat larger areas called communities. These communities are the
major sub-areas of a city. A community is generally made up of six to eight neighbor-
hood planning areas.
Community facilities supplement those provided by neighborhood parks and are planned
to serve a much larger population and area. Rather than avoiding major arterials
` as with neighborhood parks, good access to transportation modes is essential to a
community facility. Opportunities for young people and adults are the prime consid-
erations and large spaces are required to provide for these activities.
Determination of Community Planning Areas
As outlined in Section 3, "Description of Basic Space Requirements", these facilities
should serve a population from 20,000 to 25,000 over a 20 minute driving radius.
At the present time the City requires only one complete community center with both
indoor and outdoor facilities. It does, however, require three community center
sites with outdoor playing fields and other facilities. See discussion on community
space and number on pages 3-22 and 3-23. These three community centers would
most reasonably be located in the following areas: West Hill, Valley and Scenic Hill
and East Hill areas. In later years, as the City nears saturation, we would predict
the requirement for some six community centers: one on the West Hill, one in the
Valley and Scenic Hill area and four on the East Hill.
Community Center Concept
Community recreation facilities should ideally be located adjacent to a school campus
in order to share use and make the best of the public investment for both facilities.
Such a plan requires that the school agency and the park agency cooperate on new
` acquisition and development plans. Ideally the community park and the senior or
junior high school site acquisition are jointly planned. In reality joint acquisition
may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, particularly in communities which
are already heavily developed. However, it should be the community's primary goal
because many of the community center's indoor facilities--such as arts and crafts
rooms, multi-purpose rooms, auditoriums, swimming pool and outdoor athletic
` facilities--are also required by the senior or junior high schools. And when one
w
4-24
ORS O„,C„ E a, .,� „o �o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS,
considers that the major use of the school facilities is scheduled for weekday daytime
hours and that community recreation is scheduled for weekday evening hours and
weekends, there seems little doubt that this arrangement gives the tax payer much
more for his tax dollar.
The equipment in an elementary school is too small to be used comfortably by the
general public and the high schools are usually too heavily scheduled with school
activities after hours to be used effectively as a community recreation center. It
is our opinion that junior high schools provide the best opportunity for joint-use
community centers.
What ORB envisions is a joint educational-recreational park, designed in such a way
that the classroom buildings have a separate entrance and a sense of autonomy,
similar to schools located on separate sites. The common recreation facilities
should be oriented in a core or central area offering easy service to all classroom
units as well as the community recreational facilities. The community entry would
be from a separate entrance oriented to those recreational facilities which the non-
school users will utilize most heavily. This separate entrance would give a sense
of identity to the adult members of the community. This community entrance area
building can house a recreation leader's office, Senior Citizens' area, and other
adult oriented facilities.
Acquisition and Development of Community Facilities
The recommended standard is 30 to 40 acres desirable, 50 acres maximum. Such
an area offers the versatility needed for a top quality facility. Service population
variations and the availability of other facilities within the community will affect the
required park and recreational facilities. Again, acquisition of community recreation
facilities calls for a common sense appraisal of the specific property as to its
location, ease of access, travel distance, cost, site adaptability, scenic views,
and environmental and social factors.
Siting Criteria for a community recreation center ideally are the following:
a. Within the core or focus of the entire community
b. Readily accessible by the public and served by major street arterials
c. Potential beauty and a potentially dramatic setting
d. Specific identity for the recreation center
e. Adequate size to accommodate future as well as existing needs =
f. Located adjacent to a junior high school.
4-25
OR � ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O C4
Design Criteria for a community park and recreation center ideally are as follows:
a. Community Recreation Building
A community recreation building should. include the following activity areas (some
activity areas can be housed in an adjoining junior high school building):
o arts & crafts rooms
o meeting rooms
o social hall
o multipurpose room for dances, community meetings, and social gatherings
o kitchen
o teenage lounge
o senior citizens loungs
o administrative offices
o display space
o swimming pool, indoor/outdoor
0 outdoor court for dances and other social gatherings
b. Sports Areas
This area should provide for a baseball diamond, several softball fields, a
multi-purpose practice field for football, soccer, or speedball, and a spectator
football field. Both baseball and football areas should provide for spectator
sports. Special care should be taken in the layout and development of the
various activity areas by providing natural screens and wind breaks. Joint use
of these facilities by both the school and the community should be planned.
c. Night Lighting
Night lighting should be provided for sports areas and for general lighting
throughout the park.
d. Paved Area for Court Games
Provide two tennis courts, two combination volleyball and basketball courts
and several elementary age game courts. Joint-use for both instructional
and free play can be accomplished by the school and the community.
e. Family Picnic and Barbecue Areas
A minimum provision of thirty family sized plots of approximately 2500 sq. ft.
per family. Privacy is afforded each family by successful arrangements of
trees and shrubs. Night lighting should be provided with kitchen shelters to
serve four to six families.
4-26
R s
o -
N o I o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
f. Quiet Area
A quiet area should be near the activity building. This area will provide for
shaded retreats with benches and sun shelters for reading, sunning and resting.
Such an area is particularly appropriate adjacent to senior citizens' lounge.
g. Surfaced Patio
A smooth surface patio for dancing, outside displays and exhibits should be
located adjacent to the activity center and lighted at night.
h. Natural Area
A natural area with foot paths and trails would be attractive for day camping
and small groups engaged in nature studies and sketching.
i. Preschool Play Area
Provide swings, slides, creative play equipment, sandboxes, an open area for
free play, log mountain, and climbing maze along with benches and sun shelter
for mothers.
j. Play Area for Elementary Children
This area should have swings, traveling rings, horizontal ladder, molehill,
dryland sailor and sandpile, climbing poles and council ring. A good location
is near a wooded area where children can dig, build, and explore the wondrous
things in the forest.
k. Free Play Recreation Area
This is an open, turfed area bordered by trees and shrubs. Ideally located near
the picnic area, it provides elbow room for parents and children before and after
the picnic dinner. This area is suited for semi-active games such as croquet,
pitch and putt, horseshoe pits, and frizbee.
1. Parkin
There should be offstreet parking for 130 automobiles to provide for the general
recreation areas. Additional parking should be provided for the spectator fields.
m. Senior Citizens' Area
Provide an area for lawn bowling, shuffleboard, croquet, and horseshoes,
preferably next to senior citizens' lounge.
Evaluation of Community Facilities
In this section we will evaluate community facilities in the three communities mentioned
above: West Hill, Valley and Scenic Hill, and East Hill. The neighborhoods which
compose the communities are taken from "Demographic Characteristics" in Section 2
4-27
O R 3M ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS,ENGINEERS
O ���
r
'1
9
Figures 2-2 and 2-3 illustrate the neighborhood boundaries. A detailed breakdown
of public - owned properties can be found in Table 2-9. Figure 4-1 illustrates park
and school facilities in the Kent area.
a. West Hill Community Planning Area
The present lands in this area of community size are Kent Highlands Park,
Lake Fenwick Park, Highline Community College, and Thomas Jefferson
Senior High School. Although Kent Highlands Park is centrally located with
good access and some good scenic possibilities, it will only be half the desirable
space requirement. This site is presently a sanitary land fill which will
eventually cover 21 acres and is expected to be ready for development by 1977.
Lake Fenwick Park is a major urban park which has regional significance
because of its waterfront attraction. Its primary attributes are the natural
landscape and scenic characteristics and.as such is not suitable for an active,
highly developed community park.
Highline Community College has a rather large campus, many of the facilities
needed at a community park, and is well-located with good access. However,
it is heavily scheduled for its owrl programs. Thomas Jefferson Senior High
School and Pacific Junior High are not well located.
After much consideration, ORB feels the best community center site for the
West Hill is in the area of the State Highway Department property (Site Number
4-2-1 on.Figure 2-3) Another location mightbe property near Sunnycrest
Elementary School. Although the Federally owned military site is small, should
it become surplus property, it might also be a possibility. This general area
would provide a central location for all West Hill residents and good access to
all areas of the City.
b. Valley and Scenic Hill Community Planning Areas
The lands in this area of community import are Mill Creek Canyon Park and
Russell Road Park. Although Mill Creek Canyon Park is 100 acres and very
well located with good access and scenic potential, the topography of the site
does not lend itself at all to the activities appropriate for a community park.
Mill Creek is suitable for a large urban park or regional facility and has been
previously designed as such by ORB in a previous conceptual plan.
Russell Road Park was conceived as a major athletic facility for the Kent Area
and in the master planning, ORB pointed out the possible remodeling of the
old sewage treatment facility for use as a community recreation building.
However, the park is not well located for a community recreation center.
Kent Memorial Park has long been the center of the recreation activity for the
community. However, at 11 acres it is rather small for a community center site.
4-28
O t�
o o ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENG/NEERS O
The property to the east of Memorial Park is available for purchase and should
be given consideration for such a downtown recreation center. It should be
noted that this land is low and poorly drained. (See ORB drainage report
made in 196 9)
Since land in the Valley and Scenic Hill community is at a premium, it might
be necessary to construct the indoor community center at a separate site
away from complementing outdoor facilities. This should be resorted to only
as a last resort. Since this recreation center will serve the entire Kent
community for nearly ten to fifteen years in the future its location will be of
greater importance than all future facilities.
We recommend that the City's first indoor recreation center be constructed
in the downtown Valley and Scenic Hill community. This Community is presently
the most heavily developed and the most difficult one in which to acquire property.
C. East Hill Community Planning Area
The East Hill Community Planning Area will eventually require the acquisition
and development of four community park and recreation facilities. The first
community park is required immediately and should be centrally located so
that it can serve the entire East Hill Area for the present.
This first community park should be located generally in the Meridian Junior
High School area. While there are many suitable sites in this area, we recommend
two for consideration. The first is a large block of land north of Meridian Junior
High School presently owned by the State Department of Natural Resources. The
second is the area surrounding Clark Lake. This area offers the obvious
natural amenities of a water-oriented park which cannot be overlooked.
The King County Parks Forward Thrust Program has currently programmed
funds for the acquisition of an East Hill Community Park. ORB recommends
that the Kent Park and Recreation Department coordinate the purchase of this
park with the King County Parks Department. Since the County is presently
tied-up with other acquisition projects, much of the application work might
be accomplished by the Kent Department.
Acquisition and Development Priorities
The priority ranking for acquisition of community park land is Valley and Scenic Hill
Area first, West Hill second, and East Hill third. The first community recreation
center building should be developed in the Valley and Scenic Hill Area.
4-29
O
A c I E A r .I G N 0 o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS •
F,
MAJOR URBAN PARKS
The Kent Park and Recreation Department has done an excellent job of providing the {
City with major urban parks and open spaces. During the late 1960's and early 1970's
they fought many battles with individuals and groups within the City over the purchase
of Mill Creek Canyon Park. The canyon is an excellent example of a large urban
park which has city-wide and regional interest. Few cities can boast a 100 acre green
belt in the midst of their most highly developed area.
Another example of such vision is the 47 acre Lake Fenwick Park recently purchased
on the City's West Hill. The natural setting of this park, nestled against the shoreline
of Lake Fenwick, provides the City's only passive waterfront area.
Mill Creek Canyon Park, Lake Fenwick Park, and the proposed Riverfront Park
System will provide the City with large open areas which can be utilized not only as
active and passive parks, but as major components of the City's proposed Trail
System.
Acquisition standards developed in Section 3 of this report call for setting aside the
following urban park acreage as a minimum in the Kent Park Planning Area.
Kent Area Minimum Acreage
Population Requirement
1971 43, 900 154 acres
1990 80, 900 283 acres
Saturation 150, 900 528 acres
It can be seen that 100 acre Mill Creek Canyon Park and 47 acre Lake Fenwick Park
have adequately satisfied the City's existing needs for urban park acquisition. The
Riverfront Park System recommended elsewhere in this report will also increase the
City's large open spaces when implemented. The Riverfront Park System will become
more of a regional attraction, drawing participants from other cities in the Puget
Sound Area. Funding for the Riverfront Park System should therefore receive heavy
County, State and Federal support.
Specific Recommendations
In the future the City should give consideration to purchasing a large area of Garrison
Creek Canyon for park and recreation use. Like Mill Creek Canyon, it will give a
good main arterial trail access to the East Hill of Kent from the valley floor.
4-30
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
RIVERFRONT PARK SYSTEM (Major Urban Park)
Introduction
The Green River is probably the key feature in the Kent area. It was the key to
the historical development of the area; white settlers used the river as a means
of transportation and communication, and the first settlements in the area were
along its shores. The river is the area's chief physical feature and played a major
part in the geologic development of the valley. The river is also the chief visual
characteristic of the area. With the diversion of the White, Black, and Cedar Rivers,
the valley in the Kent area has come to be commonly called the Green River Valley.
Water itself has been demonstrated to be a prime requisite to outdoor recreation.
Practically every study or survey done in this country has emphasized the high desir-
ability of water associated with outdoor recreation. It does not seem to matter what
activity or facilities are involved, the mere presence of water nearby somehow en-
riches the recreational experience. The Green River winds its way through the midst
of the Kent area, right past the downtown business district. Although this is by no means
a wild river in its natural state, the banks are almost completely free from development.
The first developments in the area were along the river, but the lumber mills along the
hillside and the introduction of the railroads shifted the community away from the river.
The close alignment of Russel and Frager Roads to the river has also discouraged river-
front development.
State Position on Shorelines
Substitute House Bill No. 584, Sec. 2, of Washington State Law states. . ."The legisla-
ture finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its
natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their
utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. "
In addition, the legislature finds that. . . "much of the shorelines of the state and the up-
lands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the
privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest;
and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary. . ."
It is further suggested that there is an urgent demand for a planned, rational, and con-
certed effort, jointly performed by Federal, State and local governments to preserve
and enhance the physical and ecological quality of shorelines.
The State feels that local government should develop master programs for shorelines of
state-wide significance and in doing so, priorities should be given in the following order
of preference:
"(1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest;
4-31
O ML 3M ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O ,-,
f_
r (2) Preserve the natural character of the shorelines;
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
"In the implementation of this policy the public should be given the opportunity to enjoy
the physical and aesthetic qualities of the natural shorelines of the state to the greatest
extent feasible, and consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people.
r To this end, uses shall be preferred which are consistent with the control of pollution
and the prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent
upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines
of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for
single family residences, ports, and shoreline recreational uses including but not limited
to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitiating public access to shore-
lines of the state, industrial, and commercial developments which are particularly de-
pendent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development
that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shore-
lines of the state.
" Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner
to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment
of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water."
It is suggested that a minimum of 200 feet of property landward of the ordinary high water
mark of shorelines should be reserved in its natural form for state-wide park and natural
reserve purposes.
County Position on Shorelines
In the Open Space Element Amendment to the King County Comprehensive Plan, the
County Environmental Development Commission recommends the following policies: "As
many surface waters as possible shall be made available to the public through easements
and fee acquisition. Compatible use adjacent to these surface waters should enhance
their open space character. Waters flowing through highly developed areas should have
provisions for private and public linear park facilities along their banks. " The King
County Parks Department is following-up these recommendations in the Kent area by
acquiring a lineal park along both sides of the Green River from Kent to Auburn. The
North Green Regional Park will be a major County facility and provide parking, access
and open space for the County residents.
City Position on Shorelines
The Kent Comprehensive Plan for 1988 designates the area along both sides of the river
4-32
CoM;L oo ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
as open space which can either be publicly or privately owned. It does recognize that
"actual use of the land cannot be limited to open space unless the City or other public
agency acquires title or rights to such land. "
The City Planning Department is currently preparing a plan as to what they recommend
for their shorelines. They indicate that there has been no change in policy in respect
to the open space green belt.along the river as recommended in the 1988 Plan.
Present Status of the River and Environs
The Green River is diked or rip-rapped along its entire course through the Kent area.
The typical cross section of the river and shorelines is trapazoidal to U-shaped. Not
only are these definite geometric shapes aesthetically unpleasant, but they also make
access to the river difficult for fishermen, floaters, and other would-be river users.
These geometric, high banks give the river more the aspect of a ditch than of a river.
The water quality has recently improved, but there is still considerable turbidity. This
turbidity combined with the smooth, silted bottom does not provide a good habitat for
game fish. However, the water is of sufficient quality for the passage of migratory
fish and this area provides excellent steelhead fishing.
There are presently very few points at which the public can gain access to the river
shore, and even fewer places to safely park a vehicle. There is a need for public access
and parking along the river as well as beautification of the shoreline. It obviously has
great potential as a green belt and linear park system.
Drainage and Flood Control
Levees and dikes line the Green River as it runs through the Kent area to protect the
valley from the floodwaters which have historically inundated the valley floor. The levees,
in concert with Howard Hanson Dam and the diversion of the White River to the south, have
greatly reduced the flood danger. Howard Hanson Dam was designed to protect the valley
from floods considerably over the 100-year level with the provision that it could discharge
water at 12,000 cubic feet/second (CFS) which would be a bank-full condition for the levees.
Tests made after the completion of the darn indicated that the levees became somewhat un-
stable at 11, 000 CFS. Since then, discharges have not exceeded 9 to 10,000 CFS to provide
a wide margin of protection for the existing levees. Even this considerably reduced dis-
charge rate gives the valley protection from storms exceeding the 100-year level.
The Green River drains not only the basin above the dam, but the valley around Kent and —
the East and West Hills as well. As we mentioned in Section 1 "Topography and Drainage,"
the urbanization of these areas stops considerable precipitation from entering the sub-
surface systems and increases surface flow threefold. The natural drainage systems have
evolved slowly over the millenia and the recent rapid urbanization with the concurrent
rapid increase in surface flow overburdens their capacities and causes rapid erosion,
O � � 4-35
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
r�
" flooding, property loss, and deterioration of the surface drainage systems. The Mill
Creek Canyon flood difficulties are a classic example of this problem. As urbani-
zation increases, so will the run-off; we can only expect this problem to worsen. The
best solution from the point of view of water quality, open space, and parks and rec-
reation would be to initiate "mini'-watershed projects to slow run-off and encourage
infiltration using natural systems such as ponds, marshes, parks, and bogs. Land for
r4 such use would for the most part have to be acquired. The Soil Conservation Service
would be the likely agency to aid in such projects.
This surface flow moves through the drainage systems down the west and east hills and
across the valley to empty into the Green River. The increased flow from the hill areas
combined with the increase in the valley has caused,ponding and local flooding in the valley
areas before the water can make its way to the Green River. This in turn causes problems
with the existing agriculture and the future development of the area. In the late 19501s,
the Soil Conservation Service was requested by the residents of this area to prepare a
water shed management plan to alleviate these increasing problems on the valley floor.
The SCS envisions a network of drainage channels across the valley to collect this run-
off from the hills; the collected run-off would then be pumped into the Green River. The
Black River Pump Station is one of the main components of this system and has already
been constructed. This station is designed to pump into the Green River all of the water
collected from the valley floor channels on the east side of the Green River. There are
currently only 500 feet of channel connected to the station, the rest of the network channels
feeding water to the station, as well as the watershed project for the west side of the Green
River, await the analysis of the environmental impact, funding and construction.
If approved, this network of channels would present an opportunity to the Park and Recrea-
tion Department for an an allied network of trails along the channel maintenance roads and
would also present a considerable aesthetic challenge for beautification of the project. The
Department should closely follow these proceedings and make use of opportunities to inject
the public park and recreation interest into the planning. Beautification and recreation
considerations can be incorporated into the present schematic phase of this project or into
modifications of the project, but Kent must quickly make known its concern for these as-
pects of the project before the project moves out of the schematic design phase.
Basic Recommendations
A linear park should be established along both sides of the Green River throughout its
course in the Kent Park Planning Area. The following facilities should be interspersed
appropriately throughout the length of the park:
o River access
o Picnic
o Fishing
o Sunning beach adjacent to the river
o Trails
4-34
oRs0 ` '
o I s o„ A,C„E a. I G„0 1 o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
o Interpretive historic and natural sites
o Parking
o Rest rooms
o Open play areas
o Quiet natural areas
This is a distant goal at best, but its difficulty makes it no less desirable. New and
existing legislation and cooperation with other agencies give hope for the accomplish-
ment of such difficult tasks.
Figure 4-2 illustrates the Riverfront Park System. This is a schematic illustration
only, and actual boundaries of the park should be selected only after a detailed study
of the parcel availability, preliminary discussions with the parcel owners, and the
completion of the shoreline study by the Kent Planning Department.
Dikes and the Park System
Since diking for the most part abuts directly on the river, decisions on the future of
these levees bear directly on the planning for the park system. The decisions to be
made on the levee modification are based on extremely complex engineering and en-
vironmental questions and are further complicated by involved political considerations.
Prediction of the outcome is impossible, but progress can be made in the interim toward
the implementation of a park system. These initial steps can be made so as to require
minimal relocation and redevelopment when the levee decisions are finally made.
If the levees are not raised, it is desirable that the dikes be set back a minimum of
200 feet in a number of different areas. 'This setback would allow the development of
more natural settings and much better access to the river. The federal government
and the Corps of Engineers are very willing to cooperate in the aesthetic enhancement
and provision of such public access, but would be unlikely to participate in a purely park
and recreation development, so the City must look elsewhere for aid on such a project.
Obvious places for dike setback are the horseshoe bends of the river where the land is
difficult to use for purposes other than open space. The setback of the dikes in such an
area would probably result in the eventual cutting through of the remaining land and the
creation of an oxbow lake. Not only would this be an interesting and unusual park, but
the process would be an interesting feature for environmental education classes. The
shoreline between the setback dike and the river would be subject to occasional flooding,
but this would be of no deleterious consequence, as provision for such inundation could
easily be made in the design of the area.
The most appropriate location of such setbacks can be determined in the coming shoreline
study conducted by the Kent Planning Department. A beautification and tree planting
program could be one of the first undertakings for the river park. Negotiations should
proceed with all possible dispatch to obtain use easements along the top of the levees
for the trail system. Master planning each of the major sites in the riverfront park can _
4-35
O R 8 � ��
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
be carried forward while keeping abreast of the levee raising controversy. These
major sites should include provision for those improvements indicated in the basic
recommendation.
v
If the levees are raised, it is even more desirable that the dikes be set back. This
raising will considerably worsen not only the problems of aesthetics and access but
all of the other problems previously noted. The raising of the levees would probably
be a Corps of Engineers' project and, although local money would have to provide the
land for such setbacks, the cost of the movement and construction of the dikes could
r be included in the federal funding for such a project.
The sites for setback would be the same in either case, except that there should be more
setbacks if the levees are raised. A beautification and tree planting program could be
rapidly undertaken even before the levee adjustment if carefully planned and coordinated
with the Corps. The trail system could also be initiated, limiting improvements to
those which would be either unaffected or constitute minimal lost investment when the
dikes are later raised. Master planning of each of the major sites in the riverfront
park system can be carried forward as in the other case.
Specific Recommendations
f Implementation Committee. The Green River is a splendid river: fresh, fast, full of
salmon and steelhead when they are running, shaded by alder and cottonwood, and dotted
with areas of historical significance. There is much about the river that is worth while
and warrants its preservation as a major recreation feature of the City. Time is
short however, and the task is difficult. Much more difficult than can be accomplished
by the City's Park and Recreation Director or the Board of Park Commissioners
alone for they are already overworked by the demands of the City's active recreational
interests. In fact, if this task is to be accomplished, it must be done by those with a
singleness of purpose, an overwhelming desire and a fervent interest in those river
features which such a park system would preserve.
For this reason ORB recommends that the Mayor of Kent appoint a special five member
Riverfront Park System Committee to assist the Parks and Recreation Director and the
Board in the planning, acquisition, and development of a system along the Green River.
The Committee's first task would be to work with the Departments of Parks and Recreation
and Planning to develop a detailed master plan for a continuous parkway along the Green
River. Since the City's Park Board has a full schedule dealing with the program content,
the neighborhood and community parks and with other current aspects of the park and
recreation system, we recommend that the River Front Park committee work directly
with the Park and Recreation Director and report its findings directly to the City Council.
4-36
OMR -PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
o.. o I I o„ „,�„E „, ARCHITECTS
The duties for the Riverfront Park System Committee should include:
o Establish the City's goals and objectives for the development of riverfront parks
on the Green River and recommend them to the City Council for adoption.
o Encourage enthusiastic and aggressive public support for the development of a
Riverfront Park System project.
o Serve as a citizen's advisory board to develop a master plan for the acquisition and
development of the Riverfront Parks project in the City of Kent.
o Organize a campaign to convince and assist private property owners along the river
to donate land or provide easements to the City for park purposes.
o Prepare financial implementation plan and assist the Park and Recreation Director
in obtaining funds and implementing the plan.
o Establish liason with other agencies at the County, State and Federal levels who
have responsibility for the control of the Green River and make them aware of and
encourage them to actively aid the City's goals and objectives. Monitor all plans
being proposed by these agencies to assure compliance with the City's goals.
ORB would further recommend that the Riverfront Park System Committee consider the
following components in the development of such a system of parks.
Linear park. There should be a continuous linear park on the river along both sides of
its course as it flows through the Kent area. It is desirable that this park have a minimum
depth of 200 feet, and basically provide landscaped riverside open space. There should
also be specific, frequent provision for off-street parking, restrooms, and good access
to the river itself. The initial phase of this project would be to acquire those portions of
land which has been cut-off between the roadway and the river. This would establish a
chain of small parks along the river provided with basic amenities and would establish
early access to the river by the citizens.
Trails. The levee tops provide an excellent basis for trails. A trail along the Green
River has been identified in the King County Urban Trails Plan as the second highest
priority in the County. The Kent Park and Recreation Department has already initiated
a route along the river. Much of this route is along the existing little-used roadway and
can gradually be moved onto the dikes as they are developed. Since the dikes may be
raised, only minimal development of the trail such as clearing and grading should take
place until the levee adjustment question is settled. However, much work must be done
on acquiring easements for such usage of the dikeway. The initial phase of the linear park
will provide places for rest stops for the trail users, and the trail will help tie the park
chain together. _
4-37
■ $ O ,-,
O a _ E .* 8 1 G N I O ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS nENGINEERS •
t
River level parks. The setting back of the dikes in several areas will provide an
t excellent opportunity for citizens of the area to experience the river at first hand.
1 Although much of the park area would be inundated at high water, and all of the
area could be expected to be submerged in the eventuality of a 100-year flood, this
1 could easily be taken into consideration during the master planning and design of these
1 areas. These maior units in the riverfront park system should provide the following
facilities:
l o Excellent river access
l o Beach area
o Interpretive natural and historic areas
o Picnic areas
o Open play areas
o Quiet natural areas
o Fishing
t
o Restrooms
o Parking
Interpretive areas. Specific sites along the river which are of particular historic
or natural interest should be preserved, marked, and interpreted to the users.
The White River Valley Historical Society has gathered together a great deal on the
heritage of the Kent area and has already presented some of this material to the Kent
r Park Board. We at ORB believe that four key historic sites exist on the river which
Il offer an excellent opportunity for interpretation: VanDoren's Landing, Maddocksville,
Langston's Landing, and Alvord's Landing. These riverfront points were the stopping
places for riverboats and were the first settlers' only source for transportation,
supplies, and communication. These heritage sites are the nuclei from which the
white settlement of the area took place. Some marshes, wetlands, and other wildlife
f habitat still exist either on the river or very close to it. The preservation of these
areas would encourage not only year round wildlife, but the continuation of the spectacular
seasonal visits by the migratory waterfowl. The integrity of these wetlands is jeopardized
by portions of the SCS watershed management channels. The Kent Park and Recreation
t Department should ensure that the public's interest and concern for these habitats are
represented and made effective while the planning for these channels is still in the
schematic design phase.
Funding the Riverfront Park System
The acquisition and development for such a fine recreation facility requires very
careful and extensive planning. There are a number of ways that the City can receive
aid for such a large project. Water oriented recreation property has a high priority
with both the State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) and the Federal
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR). The proximity of the park system to such a
4-38
OR S
O
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
i
rapidly urbanizing area should make the project particularly appealing. By application
to the IAC the City could receive up to 75% funding for the project from the State
Outdoor Recreation Fund and from the BOR. It might be very difficult fot the City
to obtain its required 25% matching share of the project cost. However, several IAC
rules would enable the City to acquire portions of the riverfront system without a
direct expenditure of funds.
Use of donated land as the City's matching share. The IAC has ruled that donated
land may be used as the applicant's matching share in the purchase of property.
Acquisition involving compatible, multiple uses. Non recreation uses such as water
conservation and other natural resource uses may be carried out within the proposed
park area if they are clearly compatible and secondary to recreation use and are
approved by the IAC.
Encouragement of State agencies to participate. Joint participation in projects with the
State Department of Parks and the State Game Department are also possible. Projects
of extraordinary or unique recreational or historical interests are prime candidates
for this type of cooperation.
National Contingency Funds. Unique projects of Regional Interest such as wetlands or
wildlife preserves which are well beyond the capability of a local agency to acquire, may
gain funds from the Secretary of Interior's Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) National
Contingency fund.
Zoning Requirements are another method through which Kent may obtain donated land. The
land to the west of the river is generally zoned residential agriculture in the Kent 1988
Plan. The land to the east of the river is largely zoned industrial park. As pointed
out in the section of this report on "Trail System", Washington State Law states that
a city or county legislative body should inquire into the public use and interest
proposed to be served by the establishment of a subdivision or dedication. Parks,
alleys and other public ways are a part of those public uses which should be appropriately
provided in the subdivision and rezoning. After approval of this plan the city council
should establish local ordinances and regulations that assure dedication of parks and
public ways by developers. Thus both industrial and residential developers would be
encouraged to provide some open space along the river which could be used as the
City's matching share for the purchase of more lands.
Master Plan for Development of the Green River
During 1973, the City's Planning Department in cooperation with the Park and Recreation
Department will develop a master plan for the development of the City's Green River Park
System. When completed, this master plan will replace the generalized plan submitted
by ORB in this report.
i-
4-39 •.
°L S 0 N A I_I E A r ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
17
a
TRAIL SYSTEM
General
Trails, as discussed in this report, are generally defined as deliberate, man-made
pathways, which are not as wide as a street and are used for non-motorized traffic.
e Such trails have two basic functions: to provide a means for leisure activity and for
non-motorized transportation. The trail offers residents one of the greatest oppor-
tunities for enjoyable exercise and for experiencing the out-of-doors first-hand. It
r can provide better access to recreation facilities and help display scenery at better
advantage. As a complimentary transportation system, it frees the citizen from the
constraints, expense, and sensory deprivation of the automobile, and provides an
r alternate means to such everyday activities as work, shopping, school and leisure
activities. Although this report is concerned with recreation trails, one must re-
main cognizant of the fact that mere transportation can become a recreational ac-
tivity. Close cooperation and considerable encouragement should be given agencies
and groups planning and implementing transportation trails.
The question of providing completely separate facilities for the exclusive use of motor-
ized recreation vehicles is a controversial one. These vehicles should be prohibited
from using the rest of the trail system as they are not compatible with residential areas
and are rarely compatible with the other trail uses. The National Recreation and Park
Association has strongly recommended that public facilities not be provided for these
vehicles (Park and Recreation, July 1970). ORB endorses the NRPA stand and recommends
off-road facilities be established by private enterprise on a fee basis to support this
very enthusiastic user group.
There are basically three different types of trails considered in this report: pedestrian,
bicycle, and horse trails. Ideally, these trails should be separated; but multi-purpose
trails are often constructed, particularly when a system is initiated. Sometimes little-
used existing streets are marked as recreation trails, but this use can be continued only
for a short time. . As the area develops, these little-used roads will become more heavily
travelled and congested, which will cause safety and aesthetic problems for the users.
` The 1971 King County Urban Trails Plan establishes a good basis for trail construction
and should be consulted for methods, costs, programming, and operation and mainten-
ance.* Table 4- lists trail construction standards and Figure 4-3 illustrates a cross
section of a typical trail separated by use.
The King County Trail System plan utilizes a network of main trails which are fed by
numerous, small collector trails. Such a system should work well in the Kent area.
* Foot Paths and Bike Routes , a 1972 publication from the Oregon State Highway
Division is another excellent source.
4-41
O ZR 8
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS,ENGINEERS O
Table 4-3
TRAIL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
ACTIVITY STANDARDS
CYCLING WIDTH 8 to 10 feet (absolute min. -3 feet)
OVERHEAD CLEARANCE 10 feet (absolute ruin. -6 feet)
SLOPE 6% or less (10% for short distance)
SURFACE Preferred: 3 inches of asphalt with 3 to 4 inches
of rolled gravel subgrade.
Alternates: stabilized earth, stone chips, soil
cement, soil asphalt.
DRAINAGE Surfaces crowned and drained.
WALKING WIDTH 4 feet (absolute min. -2 feet)
OVERHEAD CLEARANCE 10 feet (absolute min. -7 feet)
SLOPE 15% or less (20% for short distance)
SURFACE Normal Walking: Same as Cycle Standards, or
3 inches of small rock or compacted soil.
Hiking: Leave natural but remove small brush.
DRAINAGE Crowned prepared surfaces and drainage.
HORSEBACK WIDTH 8 to 10 feet (absolute min. - 2 foot trail tread
with 4 foot side clearance)
OVERHEAD CLEARANCE 10 feet
SLOPE 15% or less (20% for short distance)
SURFACE Compacted earth or natural with small brush
cleared. (a)
DRAINAGE Provide adequate run-off capability.
(a) Rough, cleared trails of this type should take into account local terrain problems
to avoid serious drainage and maintenance problems. Extremely heavy use areas
should be paved.
References: U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service
Roads and Trails Handbook, "Trail Construction. "
Walter R. Cook, Pike Trails and Facilities, A Guide
to Their Design Construction and Operation , May 1965.
National Forest Service, Trail Construction Standards and
Trail Maintenance Specifications.
O 3M 4-42 +
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
4.
�• �.4'l , ��� f yy i .I��'4�� Y.�4 M�,Ar' ram"•
F �',1:a:4
IF I I x
HORSE TRAIL BICYC PATH PEDESTERIAN PATH
(NATURAL) [PAVED)LE ISURFACEDI
40'
RIGHT-OP-WAY
Figure 4-3 Typical Section of Separated Multiple Use Trail*
Demand
There have been innumerable accounts in the media over the last few years testifying to the
resurgence of interest in trail activities all over the country. Bicycling has had the most
rapid growth; even with a production of 700,000 bicycles per month, manufacturers and im-
porters can't meet the demand, The ORB recreation survey reflected this strong preference
for trail activities. Table 4-4 summarizes the results of this survey.
Table 4-4
TRAIL ACTIVITY DEMAND (a)
Projected
Average Projected Total
Per Capita Population Population
Participation Participation Participation
Occasions Occasions Occasions
Per 30 Day Per 30 Day Per 30 Day
Period Period IPeriod
Activity Adult Child Adult Child Adult + Child
Bicycling 1. 9 5.0 47, 380 94, 820 142,200
Nature
Walking 1.6 1. 3 38,899 24,653 64, 552
Horseback
Riding .6 . 6 14, 962 11,378 26,340
Jogging .6 . 4 14, 962 7,586 22, 548
(a) The projected occasions do not represent an attendance figure. Theoretical attendance
must be based on per capita demand related to population and length of season.
* King County Planning Department UxbaD Trail Plan.
4-'43
S
O PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
e o1 So„ „ ,�„Eq, .,. „ono ARCH/TECTS•
Implementation Methods
Many trail systems have been planned but few have been constructed. Implementation is
at best difficult. It requires the careful siting of the trail system along and through property
which not only has a scenic and recreation significance, but can be readily obtained on rea-
sonable terms. Poor preliminary planning can cause the final cost of the trail system to
soar far beyond the actual value of the land to be leased or purchased. For instance, a
trail which bisects a prime building site may well destroy or reduce the future value of the
entire property thus greatly increasing the cost of the trail. On the other hand, a trail that
meanders through the steepest slopes and less desirable land may be purchased or leased
at reasonable cost. Thus, as in all planning, common sense and compromise in the selec-
tion of trail routes is the best method of obtaining a successful trail system.
There are basically four ways of acquiring rights-of-way for trails: use of existing public-
owned property, acquiring property rights from land owners, use of rights-of-way of
various utilities or railroads through contracts, and use of planned regulations to secure
rights-of-way.
Existing rights-of-way include public parks, highways, or other public-owned property.
With limited budget, this method allows a larger proportion of money to be spent on develop-
ment and results in a greater number of trails being realized. In many cases these exist-
ing lands are of scenic merit, are situated within proximity to urban concentrations, and
can often be implemented without delay.
Acquisition of rights-of-way can occur in several ways: the owner may dedicate a strip
of property to the public for trail purposes, the public may acquire an easement from the
owner that allows trail uses, the property may be leased over a long period of time, the
public may acquire fee title to the property. In some cases existing easements may be
renegotiated to include trail uses. In other cases, such as railroad rights-of-way, the
owner may allow the trail use to occur if certain conditions are met.
- Use of rights-of-way of various utilities or railroads also reduces the overall cost of
trails, In many cases, trails can be located along fee-owned rights-of-way with the per-
mission of the owner if certain conditions are .met. The owner must be held harmless and
the trail use must not interfere with the primary use of the right-of-way. In cases where
only utility easements exist, the individual property owners must be contacted and ad-
ditional rights procured to allow trail uses. Flood control dike easements present this
type of problem requiring renegotiation with owners.
Zoning or subdivision regulation may be used to procure trail rights-of-way. Flood plain
zoning allows low intensity recreation uses such as trails. Plat approval or planned unit
development approval may require dedication of trail rights-of-way to complete system
linkages. Local trails within subdivisions to be used by local residents should also be
promoted and integrated into the larger system.
4-44
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
� m
The establishment of a trail system in the Kent area will largely be the responsibility of
local groups and organizations. It is also they who are most familiar with the region,
especially those "favorite spots" which may easily elude a newcomer to the scene. As a h
recreation consultant, ORB sees its role in the development of a trail system as one of
guidance, direction, and coordination. For example, the previous discussion set forth
some very basic and general guidelines for trail development. Likewise, the recommen-
dations shall be of a general nature, showing concepts and system linkages. The exact
details shall be left to local interest groups. ORB thus hopes to provide the framework
within which the various trail-oriented groups can combine their efforts into a coordinated
regional trail system.
At the present time, both King and Snohomish Counties require that property owners sub-
dividing and rezoning land in the county donate a portion of the land for public recreation
purposes. This land in many cases is too small for efficient park and recreation use,
but it does lend itself well to the development of a good recreational trail system. Senate
r Bill 169 passed in 1969 by the Washington Legislature provides enabling legislation to
assist County and City Planning Commissions in,the implementation of such recreation
acquisition programs. House Bill 1060 passed by the 1971 Legislature states that no
limited access highway shall sever or destroy an existing trail or planned recreation
trail without providing an alternate trail system. Thus, the indication of this trail plan
in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan will require the State to provide
an overpass or underpass for the proposed trail system.
Many other areas of the State are now launching into similar trail development systems.
Much information on methods and techniques of implementation will become available
in the next several years to help the City. A private organization known as Washington
Recreation and Trails Unlimited, Inc. has been working on a statewide plan for the develop-
ment of Washington trails. This group is asking all interested organizations to join them
in the development of this comprehensive trail system. The background, research, and
information collected by this group would be valuable to the City. Washington Recreation
and Trails Unlimited, Inc. can be contacted by writing Box 542, Bellevue, Washington
98004.
Park Land or Trail System Implementation by Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
Senate Bill No. 169 as contained in the 1969 Washington Laws, Chapter 271, states that a
city or county legislative body should inquire into the public use and interest proposed to
be served by the establishment of a subdivision or dedication. It is pointed out that parks,
alleys and other public ways are a part of those public uses which should be appropriately
provided in the subdivision and rezoning. After approval of this plan the City Council
should establish local ordinances and regulations that assure dedication of parks and
public ways by developers.
4-45
O R B =
b - oI s 0 N ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
UNDEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
Q
i
LAND
DEVELOPED LAND
Main Arterial PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2
Trail 10 acres 5 acres
i
Connector Trail
Dedicated by
Developer
PARCEL 3
4 acres
Figure 4-4 Example of Subdivision Connector Trail Progression
4-46
OR Sm -
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
r
r ' For large subdivisions the total acreage gained under such an ordinance can be utilized
as a neighborhood park. If, however, the subdivision is small and the acreage to be
dedicated to open space is not large enough to accommodate a park of adequate size, the
dedicated land can be utilized as a connector trail. As the neighboring land parcels begin
subdividing and rezoning, the trail system can continue from one subdivision to another
in a connected, sequential manner. Eventually, the connector trails will connect to the
main arterial trails orto a city recreation facility to form a City=wide trail system. Such
a procedure will require that the City's Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation
Department work closely together to select the proper park and trail property for future
public use. See Figure 4-4.
Thus, the connector trails and the main arterials will form a trail system which will
r provide the subdivision residents a second means of travel to their everyday activities,
such as school, shopping, and leisure pursuits. Open space land within the subdivision
which is not suitable for building sites such as steep topography or flood plains, should
be selected. Such land will in many cases provide a superior trail system or park.
In subdivision or rezoning for higher land value, the owner should be required to dedicate
a percentage of the total land to the city or county for open space and trails. The percen-
tage of dedicated land should vary depending on density.
Single Family (3.4 lots per acre): 5%
` Single Family (4.2 lots per acre): 5. 25%
Duplexes: G%
Planned Unit Developments: 10%
The City's platting resolution should be amended to include a policy statement similar to
the resolution enacted by King County and outlined below:
"Parks and Playgrounds and Open Public Spaces
If required by the County Planning Commission, all plats must provide by dedication, areas
for park, playground, or public open spaces to the extent determined as required on the
basis of density of population. "
Basic Recommendations
Our basic recommendation is that the City adopt the portion of the 1971 King County Trail
Plan which applies to the Kent Area, and develop collector trails as the opportunity arises.
There is already considerable City-County cooperation on this matter. The new Kent
26-mile Green River Bicycle Trail basically follows the suggested route of King County's
Lower Green River Trail (2B) . Since this trail is in its initial phase, much of it makes
use of the existing roadway. The City and County have also demonstrated flexibility in
deviating slightly from the County Plan to investigate the acquisition of an easement along
the right-of-way for the old Inter-Urban Puget Sound Electric Railway. Besides the his-
torical interest, this is an excellent gradient with good scenic views and will help preserve
the excellent wildlife habitat which has become well-established along this route.
4-47
OARCHITECTS•PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O -
A trail system for the Kent Area must be designed to accommodate the demands for each
type of trail. In order to establish some type of goal or guideline, we should also attempt
to estimate the length of each type of trail required. The data in Table 4-5 were derived
from the ORB Recreation Survey of demand in the Kent Area. It should be kept in mind
that these minimum figures are only guidelines based on 1971 demand. The establishment
of a facility almost invariably stimulates demand for the activity that the facility provides.
The very rapidly increasing popularity of trail activities will in itself further escalate
demand. Trails to support the demand of the area saturation population must be planned,
and land and easements acquired before the area fills in. The land acquisition and ease-
ments to connect-up an adequate trail system will be difficult enough to obtain now with
the area at less than one-third saturation.
Table 4-5
PROJECTED MINIMUM TRAIL MILEAGE
Daily Ave. Turn- Trail Miles
User Occasions User Over Required
Activity Present Saturation Spacing Rate Present Saturation
Bicycling 4,750 16,200 1/150ft. 6 22. 5 76. 7
Nature
Walking 2,150 7, 350 1/200ft. 3 27. 2 92. 8
Horseback
Riding 880 3, 000 1/30Oft. 5 10. 0 34. 9
(a) Minimum 20 ft. right-of-way. TOTAL 60(a) 204(a)
Figure 4-2 illustrates the main trail routes suggested in the 1971 King County Trail Plan,
the existing Kent Green River Bicycle Trail, and the proposed trail along the Inter-Urban
Puget Sound Electric Railway. These routes should be scrutinized by the Board, the
Department, and enthusiast groups for rational collector trail connections. The burden
of the acquisition and development of a good recreation trail system is squarely on the
shoulders of these groups. This proposed trail system will probably be the most time-
consuming recreation development recommendation in this report.
4-48
♦O+�`. r^'
O � � ARCH/TECTS•PLANNERS•ENG/NEERS ��F _
F
Implementation Committee. Much like the implementation of the Riverfront Park
System, the development of a comprehensive Trail System is beyond the capacity
F._ of the City's Park and Recreation Director and the Park Board. They must concentrate
their efforts in the administration and improvement of the community's active
recreation interests. Since trails and the associated activities of hiking, nature
walking, bicycling and horseback riding are specialized interests which require a
tremendous amount of planning, they should not demand the full attention of the City's
Park and Recreation Department.
Therefore ORB recommends the appointment of a Trails System Committee which
would be selected by the Mayor to assist the Parks and Recreation Director and the
Park Board in the planning and implementation of a City-wide trails system. This
Committee should be a five member committee made up of individuals with specific
interests in trail activities. We suggest that the Committee include members from
the following interest areas.
o Equestrian (one member)
o Bicycle (two members)
o Nature walking (one member)
o Hiking (one member)
The primary duties of this Committee would be to:
y
o Establish the City's goals and objectives for the development of a Trails System
in the Kent Park Planning Area..
o Encourage enthusiastic and aggressive support among the City's trail seeking
public.
o Serve as a citizens' advisory committee to plan new main arterial trails and to
implement those already conceived.
o Serve as a citizens' advisory committee to assist the Planning Director in
determining the routes collector trails should take to reach main arterial trails
and points of interest.
o Assist the City's Park and Recreation Director in convincing private land owners
to donate property or easements to the City for use as a part of the Trail System.
o Prepare a Financial Implementation Plan and assist the Park and Recreation
Director in obtaining funds and implementing the plan.
E
4-49
OR S
ENGINEERS O
oIsa„ q,C„Eqr 91 G„ono ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS,ENG
o Establish liason with the City's Riverfront Park System Committee, the Planning
Department, and other County, State and Federal agencies which have a common
interest. Make them aware of the Kent Trail System goals and objectives and
monitor their plans for compliance.
Park Dedication Ordinance. The City's Planning Commission should adopt an ordinance
requiring those land owners who wish to sub-divide their property to dedicate an
appropriate portion to the City for recreational use. The draft of the Los Angeles
Quimby Ordinance has been forwarded to the City's Planning Director for consideration.
GOLF COURSE RECREATION AREA
At the present time the only public golf course is the 9-hole Colony Park Course
located west of the Central Business District on the banks of the Green River. A
private golf course, the 18-hole Meridian Valley Golf and Country Club, is located
on the east hill of Kent. Present standards would indicate the need for one 18-hole
public course in the late 1970's or early 19801s. At the time of saturation, the area
will require three such facilities.
Specific Recommendations
ORB recommends that the City establish a policy which will leave the development of
public golf courses at the present time to the private sector of the economy. Such
activities have long been established as fee paying enterprises and a natural for private
ownership. An 18-hole golf course will at best satisfy the recreational pursuits of
from 400 to 500 avid golfers. Kent has more immediate needs and higher priorities
for acquisition and development of recreational facilities.
SPECTATOR SPORTS AREAS (Stadium or Coliseum)
The proposed community park and recreation centers and local high school athletic
fields will provide spectator sport facilities for local inter-scholastic and recreational
sporting events. ORB sees no need for Major Spectator Sports Areas in the Kent area.
The service radius for such facilities is some 25 miles and easily places the City of
Kent within range of both the Seattle and the Tacoma facilities.
FIELD SPORTS PRACTICE AREAS
The ORB recreation survey indicates that hunting and fishing represent a relatively F=
high recreational interest in the Kent Park Planning Area. There would be a good
demand for facilities such as a rifle range, skeet shoot area or an archery range.
4-50
O 3M E��
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS •
r-
However, these recreation activities are of a highly specialized nature involving a
t relatively small percentage of the population. ORB would recommend that private
clubs or groups be encouraged to acquire, develop and organize these facilities.
�~ Such sites should be constructed outside the park planning area in relatively undeveloped
areas of the County. ORB is convinced that if the City or County were to request
matching funds for the acquisition and development of such facilities they would
receive a very low priority with State and Federal agencies.
RIVER ACCESS AND BOATING AREAS
The Statewide Plan for Outdoor Recreation and Open Space states a service radius
tj of from 25 miles to 125 miles for boat launching facilities. Such a facility needs an
( extensive service and supporting area to provide for overnight camping and longer
` use periods. The overnight facility is rightfully the responsibility of the county and
state. ORB recommends that the City provide river access areas for launching
rafts and light river craft during the development of the Green River Parkway.
These river access facilities would include one or more launch ramps. Each river
access point and launch ramp should provide for a minimum of two acres of adjacent
property for parking, maneuvering and access roadway. In addition, ORB recommends
that a minimum of six acres of park area for general passive and semi-active
1 recreational pursuits be located next to the river access sites. For a discussion of
the riverfront parks, see the Section "Riverfront Park System.".
FRESHWATER SWIMMING AREAS
The research findings of the prestigious President's Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission National Recreation Survey revealed that 44% of the national
population prefer water-oriented recreation activities. It further indicated that
swimming is by far the most popular water-oriented recreational activity. The Kent
Recreation Survey also indicates that swimming demand tops all other recreation
activities. Our inventory of swimming facilities found the Indoor Forward Thrust Pool,
Lake Meridian, Steel Lake and Angle Lake to be the most popular. While there are
no doubt a small number of private pools within the city, it should be remembered
that the envisioned Riverfront Park System along the Green River will give the general
public good access to the water and should be a most attractive situation for swimming.
Unfortunately, there are presently a number of point sources of pollution from Auburn
and Kent which, when combined with storm water drainage, gravel mining along the
hillsides, and low summer stream flow, create an unswimmable condition. With the
increasing general awareness of environmental quality and encouragement from the
populace and all levels of government, these conditions will doubtless be abated and
1 .
1
4-51
1 O R B
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
1�.� oIso�, AE•. . 00
the beaches in the Riverfront Park System will extremely popular with swimmers,
waders, and sunbathers.
The State Technical Report on recreational standards calls for 6 acres of fresh
water beach per 100 users. The Puget Sound Governmental Council recommends a
standard of 25 effective feet of shoreline per 1000 persons. An effective foot of
shoreline is a one lineal foot of water and beach suitable for swimming and
consists of a strip of water 100 ft. out for swimming, a 200 ft. deep beach for lounging
and sun-bathing, a 100 ft deep buffer zone for bathhouse, restrooms, and picnicking,
and a 265 ft. deep strip for automobile parking and circulation. The ORRRC National
Recreation Survey estimates that by the year 1975, 55 percent of the population over
12 years old will participate in swimming as compared with a 1960 average for the
West of 48 percent. By 1990 this will increase to 64%. The ORRRC report further
estimates that social economic factors will stimulate a 34% increase in the seasonal
days per person. Assuming the 25 effective feet per thousand standard as applicable
to the 1960 participation rates, we arrive at a standard of 40 effective feet per
thousand by 1971, of 50 effective feet per thousand by 1975 and 77 effective feet per
thousand by 1990. Applying these projected shoreland standards to the Kent Park
Planning Area population, the following beach areas should be provided.
Total
Effective Effective
Feet/1000 Kent Park Feet of
Population Planning Area. Swimming
Year Standard Population Beach
1971 40 43, 900 1,756
1990 50 80, 900 4,045
Saturation 77 150, 900 11,619
Thus the proposed Riverfront Park System could provide some of the required beach
area, but for maximum utilization the major part of future swimming must be provided
by a system of swimming pools. Actually swimming pools make it much easier to
achieve an equitable distribution of swimming facilities within easy travel distance of
the City's residents.
Specific Recommendations
Since most of the suitable lakefront swimming areas have already been developed, the
City must concentrate its efforts on the Green River and on swimming pools. The
4-52
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
r
access areas of the Green River should be developed with sunning beaches and wading
areas but opportunities for good swimming utilization seem somewhat limited. ORB
recommends the construction of a swimming pool at each Community Center site.
The area's first pool has been constructed at the Kent Meridian High School site. This
County-owned pool is an indoor facility. The cool Northwest climate makes the
installation of a heated pool a must, and, because of the fewer swimming days available,
1 consideration should be given to covered indoor pools with the capacity of opening
rlarge areas to the outside during good weather.
1 The ORB recreation demand survey indicates that the people within the Kent area
presently swim nearly 158,000 times during the summer months and nearly 48,000
times during the winter. There is already a considerable swimming demand and the
installation of a new pool facility will undoubtably increase this demand.
A second pool will be required in the East Hill area in the late 1920's or early 1980's.
{
SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER
One of the city's strongest recreation programs is their Senior Citizens Center. The
leadership and resourcefulness of the Park and Recreation Department, the Park
€ Board and the Senior Citizens has made this a very successful program. We are
€ sure the enthusiasm now generated will stimulate future programs and activities.
iRecommendation
Our only recommendation is that each proposed Community Center include an area
(indoor as well as outdoor) for the use of the Senior Citizens program.
STEEP SLOPE AREAS
Steep lands constitute problems of flood control and erosion. Slopes in excess of 12
percent are not recommended for cultivation by the Soil Conservation Services.
SCS suggests that for reasons of erosion, these lands are unsuitable for development.
Landslide hazards also exist on sloping areas of medium texture or finer soils. Such
landslides are initiated by heavy loading or excavation at any place on the slope.
Excessive amounts of water or runoff from urban development also cause landslide
problems. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference has just published a preliminary
Land Use Suitability Analysis for the Green River Basin. By applying the criteria
recommended by this report to the Kent area soil types, we see that the steep slopes
and soil type of both the West and East Hills, have a severe hazard to landslide and
i erosion.
Recommendation
ORB recommends that the Board of Park Commissioners recommend to the City's
. Planning Commission that the land areas defined on figure 4-2 be zoned for low
density use. We recommend that this density be no more than one house per three
acres on wooded, undeveloped areas. In areas where present zoning might allow
higher use we recommend a maximum density of one house per acre.
4-53 �-
O ENGINEERS O
� - 0 So„ q,�„E •, .,„„ono ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENG
KENT SCHOOL AND PARK AGENCY COOPERATION
Joint Use
Since 1957 when Barney Wilson first came to Kent, agreements with the School
District have been in effect requesting joing-use of facilities. In general, relation-
ships have been good and the cooperation between the school and the park agencies
has benefitted not only both agencies, but the general public as well.
The primary way in which the Kent School District has assisted the Park Department
is in providing indoor facilities to support the City's winter recreational programs
as well as playgrounds for outdoor athletic leagues. This use of the large school
plant has allowed the Park Department to concentrate its resources on acquiring
and developing recreation areas without having to duplicate the facilities made
available by the School District. Under this program the Kent educators and School
Superintendent have been able to devote their efforts in gaining public support for
academic programs and have not had to defend against attacks on the "life-adjustment"
curriculum and so-called "frills" of leisure education. The responsibility for recreation
programs and facilities is clearly that of the Kent Park and Recreation Department
and it is they who must defend their program from the demanding public. The Kent
Park and Recreation Department has demonstrated the capability of obtaining large
state and federal matching grants for the acquisition and development of outdoor
recreation facilities and can provide outdoor facilities and services to the schools
in return for use of the school's indoor recreational plant. Probably one of the greatest
intangible assets to any school district from such a cooperative program is the public
goodwill generated by a high community use of the educational facilities.
The Kent .community is simply not in a financial position to build a complete set of
indoor facilities for recreation that will duplicate those already available through the
schools; facilities such as gymnasiums, multi-purpose rooms, music and art rooms,
auditoriums and meeting rooms.
From the point of view of the taxpayers there is no excuse for not having school-owned
(taxpayer owned)- property and facilities used by the public to the fullest extent possible.
From the school administration's point of view, however, there are some practical
reasons such as the additional expense of heating, cleaning, and maintenance caused by
additional recreational use of the schools. Who will pay for these? For the most part
the municipal park departments are simply not organized to maintain large indoor
school facilities and the burden must fall on the school district. It would appear,
however, that the charging of rental fees by the school district is not the answer. There
are many inherent problems in the charging of rental fees between one public agency
and another. In a nationwide survey of recreation and education administrators, --
4-54
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
r
r �
r fees were cited as being a key problem. Experience has shown that by far the best
solution is a reciprocal trade of services in areas where each agency is most competent
F to perform such services. As an example the school district can make its indoor
facilities available to the municipal park department in return for the acquisition,
development and maintenance of all outdoor playfield and playground areas. Park n
departments are eligible man
a
ible for state and federal acquisition and development
1 , y
matching grants that could pay up to 75% of the capital improvement costs. Park
departments are almost always better trained and equipped to operate and maintain
F - large property areas than school districts. Thus this type of reciprocal agreement is
common. In some areas the park and recreation department may construct a joint-
use recreational facility such as a swimming pool on school property and sign a
reciprocal agreement for joint school-park operation and use. Whatever the method,
the details of such an arrangement can be worked out between the City Director of
Parks and Recreation and the School Superintendent and ratified by their respective
boards.
During the next decade public interest will bring a great deal of pressure upon the
Kent School District to provide a strong outdoor environmental education program.
This is an area where the Park and Recreation Department can be of real help in
obtaining suitable property and in development and maintaining such a facility for
use by both the schools and community programs.
Joint Planning
While the reciprocal use of educational and recreational facilities discussed above
will provide a community with an efficient use of their tax dollar, there are other
levels of cooperative activity which extend beyond the normal relationship. The joint
planning of both school-owned and city-owned facilities by school and municipal
recreation authorities will greatly increase the efficiency of the tax dollar expenditure.
Some examples of such planning in other communities are the providing of outside
access to toilets, arts and crafts rooms, and storage areas for recreational equipment,
and the changing of multi-purpose rooms in size and shape to serve as a neighborhood
gymnasium. The location of such rooms to the outdoor play areas and this access to
a community entrance area should also be given prime consideration. In some cities,
separate heating facilities are provided in those areas which will be given a high
community use. The design and layout of municipal park areas adjacent to school
property should also be given consideration to assure a full use of the facility by the
school.
The cooperative planning of joint use facilities can best be implemented by a joint
planning committee made up of the staff and board members of the municipality and
the Kent or Federal Way School District. Such a group could establish the design
criteria and recommend plans and policies for the establishment of school-park
recreational facilities.
4-55
O R 8
HITECTS PLANNERS-ENGINEERS O
osoN A ,.EA, .I GNoLo ARC
Specific Recommendations
We would recommend that immediate action be taken by both the City Council and
the School Board to review the cooperative school-park program. We would recommend
further that the following guidelines be used to establish such a program:
_ Guideline No. 1
The City Administrator should plan regular conferences with the Superintendent of
Schools to achieve constructive, mutual, recreational planning policies. It is suggested
that a joint school-park planning commission be established. Such a joint-use planning
group would be made up of individuals from the Park and Recreation Department,
the School District staff and perhaps a member from the Park Board and the School
Board. Personal contacts and effective public relations are essential to educate
school administrators and school district board members on the values of cooperative
community recreation. In all conferences, meetings and planning committees, it
is necessary to establish and maintain a spirit of cooperation between the Department
and the School District.
Guideline No. 2
Prepare clearly established policies in the form of written contracts and agreements
to which both parties agree and subscribe. Written policies should be established
for the use of school facilities and a pre-arranged agreement as to the percentage of
contribution and/or reciprocal uses should be made.
Guideline No. 3
_ In order to deserve the respect and cooperation of school authorities, the City must
conduct a highly effective, fully professional program and must:
o Carry out strict enforcement of rules and policies,
o Obtain fully qualified personnel,
o Maintain thorough, conscientious supervision,
o Schedule programs and requests for facilities as early as possible.
Facilities scheduling techniques should be worked out with the School District to
preclude hardships on either party. In situations where difficulty is encountered
on a lower level of authority, the City Administrator should deal directly with the
Superintendent of Schools and expect that their policies will be implemented by other
echelons of school and park personnel.
Guideline No. 4
Whenever it is administratively feasible to do so, school personnel should be employed
in the City's recreation program in leadership and administrative capacities. This
helps to insure good relationships and strengthens the communications between the
two agencies.
4-56
OR 8
ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
r
r
PARK AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION
Recommendations concerning the administration and operation of the City's Park
and Recreation system are beyond the scope of this study. However, we would like
to include a cursory discussion concerning our observations made during the Study.
History
The first Park and Recreation Director was hired in 1957 and since that time the
�~ department, under the leadership of Mr. Barney Wilson, has grown to 7 maintenance
men, 2 City-County recreation directors, 1 recreation supervisor, 1 senior citizen
director, and 4 secretaries.
In 1969 a Board of Park Commissioners was established by Ordinance No. 1568.
Under this ordinance the Board consists of three commissioners who must be
residents of the Kent Park Planning Area and of recognized fitness for such a position.
Each commissioner is appointed by the Mayor for a three-year term. This Ordinance
` established the following powers and duties for the Board of Park Commissioners:
l
o Perform all duties provided by the laws of Washington relating to boards of
r park commissioners of cities of third class.
jt o Conduct any form of recreation or cultural activity that will employ the leisure
of the people in a constructive and wholesome manner and they shall have control
and supervision of all parks belonging to the city.
o Plan, promote, manage and acquire, construct, develop, maintain, and operate
t either within the City or outside theCity, parks, squares, parkways and boulevards,
play and recreation grounds and/or other municipally owned recreation facilities
including community buildings.
o Enter into contract with the Federal, State, or local governments for recreation
programs or other powers granted above.
t .
o Exercise censorship over any statuary, monuments, or works of art presented
to the city.
o Solicit or receive gifts, bequests, money, personal property or any donation
for parks, playgrounds, or other recreational purposes.
o Grant concessions and privileges within the parks.
r
4-57
ORS
0 oo„ „,C„E„, .,G „ago ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
o Make rules and regulations for government and management and set fees and
charges for any municipally owned or controlled park or recreation facility.
o Direct the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department who shall act as
the Board's Executive officer.
o Annually submit a budget to the City Council for approval.
This ordinance also states that: the Commissioners do not have the power to acquire
land or property or to accept real or personal property without the approval of the
City Council.
Present Status
While Ordinance No. 1568 clearly states the duties of the Park Board, ORB has
observed that in reality the Board of Park Commissioners, the Director of the
Parks and Recreation Department, the City Council, the Mayor and the City Supervisor
operate as follows:
VOTERS
CITY COUNCIL MAYOR
BOARD OF PARK
COMMISSIONERS CITY SUPERVISOR.
I PARK AND
I Advisory _ _ _ _ RECREATION
DIRECTOR
PARK AND
RECREATION —
DE PART ME NT
4-58
OR 8 0 _
ARCHITECTS.PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
Recommendations for the Board of Park Commissioners
It has become obvious to ORB that some confusion exists as to administrative
responsibility and authority. The Parks and Recreation Director cannot work for
two bosses. One boss must become an advisory body, and it would appear that in
reality the Park Board should serve in an advisory capacity. We feel that the City
Council should consider a revision of Ordinance No. 1568 to encompass the following
points concerning the Park Board:
1. Duties and Responsibilities:
f a. Keep generally aware of the park and recreation demand of the City.
b. Recommend overall park and recreation goals and objectives to the City Council.
c. Interpret community recreation and park needs to the Director of the Park and
Recreation Department.
d. Interpret the City's park and recreation services to the City Council and to
the Community.
e. Serve as a sounding board against which the Park and Recreation Director may
test his plans and ideas.
f. Recommend the general policies to be followed in carrying out the goals and
objectives of the Department to the City Council.
g. Promote community interest in parks and recreation.
h. Encourage individuals and community groups to give funds and property or
manpower for the operation and development of park and recreation programs
and facilities.
i. Promote the maintenance of high standards in recreation leadership and in the
quality of programs and facilities.
2. Relationship with the City Council:
a. Meet with the City Council from time to time in formal session.
b. Recommend specific policies to the Council when they are needed to ensure a
smooth-running City operation.
4-59
OMLma
w 0 L 5 0 N ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENGINEERS O
c. Make recommendations to the City Council and backed by good, written facts.
d. Support the overall Council program, not just the parks and recreation services.
3. Relationship with the Director of Parks and Recreation:
a. Keep the line between policy and administrative responsibilities clear.
b. Give the Director of Parks and Recreation a free hand in carrying out all matters
pertaining to organization, administration, and program required to meet the
Board's goals and objectives.
c. Meet with him personally at least quarterly to discuss programs, facilities,
and objectives outside of a formal session.
In all matters of Department operation, the Board should look to its Park and
Recreation Director for leadership and guidance. On the other hand, the Director
looks to the Commission for the direction which the park and recreation system should
take. The Board recommends policy, the City Administrator determines the policy,
and the Director is charged with executing it.
Recommendations for the Park and Recreation Director
.Ordinance 1568 should be revised to achieve the following scope of work for the
Director:
1. The Park and Recreation Director's primary responsibility is to execute the City's
Park and Recreation policies and to achieve the park and recreation goals and
objectives established by the City Administrator and adopted by the City of Kent.
2. The Director also serves as a technical advisor to the Board of Park Commissioners,
in which capacity he conducts studies, develops plans, and reviews and recommends
policies for consideration and action. The Commission must remember that this
is a secondary function as they could easily keep the Director and his staff tied up
in studies, plans, and reports (busy work) with no time for his primary duties.
3. The Park and Recreation Director is responsible for the overall management
of his Department in two broad categories: administration and operations.
The administrative category contains the following responsibilities:
a. Staff - selection, organization, training, and supervision of staff to include part
time and volunteer staff; to assign duties and maintain operating relationships.
® � � 4-60
ol��� A �=SEA* .IGNoLo ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
?I,
t"
j
0
00
0
0 �
w 0 N 00 co U'� co
4-1 Lo
0 0 N .00 Lo .0 o o rn
cq Lf� c
/ zw
w
� 0
w �
Lf' c
U
aw
W
C)
a
cd
o a o 0 `�° rn o LO co 0O0
0
cd
a zw
o
0 � �r rn 00 0
U .0
cd
� w
. a
a
0
LO
LO LO, M, LO ec o Fi
o Lo -It m cq
4-65
q ,C„ Eq, •,G„ono ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O
Pr
r
r
Section 5
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
r
INTRODUCTION
r The capital improvement plan presented in this report was prepared under the
direction of the City's Board of Park Commission. The highest priority has been given
to those areas of greatest need where no park and recreation facilities now exist
r or where existing parks and facilities are not adequate. A high priority has also been
given to the development of the Riverfront Park System.
The residential area of the City will have doubled by the year 1990 and action is needed
immediately to preserve the desirable open space resources of the City for outdoor
recreation. In the preparation of this plan every effort has been made to coordinate
the proposed Kent Park and Recreational facilities, with other governmental agencies
and interested citizen groups to avoid costly duplication of effort. Acquisition of the
necessary open space has been given the highest priority in the plan; however,
future development will provide for a variety of activities both active and passive for
all age groups.
At first glance the financial impact of this plan might seem well beyond the means of
the City's present population. This, of course, has always been the case in growing
communities on the edge of large urban areas such as Kent. This fact has prompted
both the State of Washington and the Federal Government to develop assistance programs
to aid local governments in the financing of their capital improvement plans. This aid
is available where the need for service and facilities are beyond the financial ability
of the local agency.
In 1964, the State of Washington established the Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation to administer funds from the State's Outdoor Recreation account. The
chairman of this agency also acts as the State's liaison officer with the Federal
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the administration of the State's portion of monies
from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Interagency Committee for
Outdoor Recreation also coordinates and advises local agencies on the availability of
funds from other federal sources such as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Farmer's Home Administration.
We have listed the most likely sources of financial aid below for the information of the
City's Board of Park Commissioners. Many others are available, however, and close
ti coordination must be maintained between the City and the State Interagency Committee
for Outdoor Recreation to assure proper utilization of the state and federal financial
assistance available. For local agencies, grants may be made up to 75% of total
project cost. Most of these programs make monies available to the local community
at the following matching rations: Local - 25%, State - 25%, Federal - 50%.
3M s 5-1
O
` O A I�.E A, .I I 10 n o ARCHITECTS PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
STATE MATCHING FUNDS
Initiative 215: Marine Recreation Land Act of 1964 CH 43. 99 RCW. This act
provides for the use of monies derived from existing motor vehicle fuel taxes paid
by purchasers of fuel used in watercraft, and not claimed by them as allowed by law,
for the acquisition or improvement of land on fresh or salt water for watercraft
oriented marine recreation purposes. The act provides for distributing such unclaimed
refundable monies, with one-half earmarked for the state and one-half for local
government units. While both acquisition and development projects are permitted,
any monies used for development under this act cannot exceed 20% of the total, nor
can more than 40% of any local development project be funded from this source.
Referendum 18 - $40,000, 000 Outdoor Recreation Bond Referendum: CH 43. 99 A RCW.
Referendum 18, approved on November 5, 1968, provides for the sale of $40,000, 000
in general obligation bonds prior to January 1, 1975, to be used for the acquisition
and development of outdoor recreation and open space areas and facilities. The
referendum calls for half of the funds to be allocated to local public agencies and half
to state agencies. The Interagency Committee had originally programmed the sale
of these bonds over a six-year period but they will be expended in the first half of 1973.
Referendum 28 - $40, 000, 000 Outdoor Recreation Bond Issue. This referendum was
just approved by Washington voters in the November 7 general election. Like
Referendum 18, it will be used for acquisition of outdoor recreation and open space
areas and facilities, and Referendum 28 will provide funding for structures as well.
This will be administered by the IAC starting in 1973.
FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS
Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), P. L. 88-578.
Objectives: The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 was authorized by
Public Law 88-578. The fund is administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
under the Department of Interior, and assists states and their political subdivisions
in acquiring and developing outdoor recreation lands and in assuring citizens of this
and future generations accessibility to outdoor recreation resources.
Uses and Restrictions: Grants may be used for acquisition and development of almost
any type of public outdoor recreation area for which other Federal financing is not
available. Projects vary from bicycle paths to hiking trails to roadside picnic stops
and from inner-city miniparks to marinas to snow ski areas. Facilities must be open
to the general public and not generally limited to special groups. Development of basic
rather than elaborate facilities is favored. Priority consideration generally is given —
to projects serving urban populations.
5-2
o , s O
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
Funding: The program is financed by revenues from federal recreation fees, sales of
federal surplus real property, the federal motorboat fuel tax, and (for the five-year
period from July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1973) sufficient annual appropriations from the
Treasury of outer continental shelf mineral receipts to assure that the income of the
fund is not less than $200 million annually. The fund money becomes available for
expenditure only when appropriated by Congress. Some of the congressional appropria-
tion is apportioned to the states according to population, some is divided evenly, and
some is based on the amount of use of outdoor recreation resources by persons from
r outside the state. The amount varies from fiscal year to fiscal year.
1
Assistance Considerations:
1) Type of Grant: Project
2) Matching Requirements: The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act specifies
that not more than 50% of the project costs may be federally financed. Congress,
however, when appropriating money from the fund, has always required a full
50% match.
3) Length of Assistance Period: Funds apportioned to a state remain available
E for obligation during the fiscal year in which appropriated and for 2 fiscal years
lafterward.
4) Time Phasing of Assistance: Once a project has been approved and money
obligated, the amount committed remains available until expended.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Open Space Program (P. L.
87-70 42 USC 1500a-1500d)
Objectives: To help communities acquire and develop land to be used as permanent
open-space in order to help curb urban sprawl, prevent the spread of urban blight,
to encourage more economic and desirable urban development, and to help provide
needed park, recreation conservation, scenic and historic areas.
Uses and Restrictions: Eligible acquisition costs include those for acquiring land and
certain structures, demolition of inappropriate structures where developed land is being
acquired, and real estate services. Eligible improvement costs include basic facilities
such as roadways, signs, landscaping, etc. , but not major construction. Acquisition
and development of the open space land must be in accord with a unified and officially
t coordinated program for development of open-space land as part of local and area-
wide comprehensive planning. Major construction such as swimming pools, marinas,
is not eligible under this program. The land must have been acquired under the
program to be eligible for a grant to improve and develop it.
5-3
O R. B
PLANNERS ENGINEERS O
�. 01 SoN „,.„Ea. .111010 ARCH/TECTS•
�l
r What are our objectives? Out of the broad, general philosophy stated above we have
derived specific objectives that will shape and direct the Department policies. The
Kent Park and Recreation Department's programs and activities will be planned and
r directed to accomplish the following objectives:
o Provide activities to stimulate good health and physical vitality.
o Provide activities which stimulate socialization of the individual.
o Provide activities which stimulate socialization of the family group.
o Provide activities which are creative and satisfying outlets and develop
cultural and artistic skills.
o Provide activities which emphasize growth and enrichment of personality.
o Provide activities which encourage civic pride and community welfare.
o Provide a balanced program for all age groups, all interests, and both sexes.
o Encourage the joint use of all community facilities such as schools, parks,
libraries, etc.
o Encourage continuing Park and Recreation Department employee education
and training.
What are the policies which will help us reach our objectives?
o Budget and Finance. The Director of Parks and Recreation shall prepare an
annual budget and present it to the Park and Recreation Commission for review
and approval. Each line Item shall be coded to the statement of objectives
required by the program and capital improvement budtets. In other words, the
budget should be justified by the Department objectives.
o Purchase. The Park and Recreation Director may take purchase action within
the City regulations on the purchase of goods and services for all.approved
budget items under $2500. 00. For those items over $2500.00, he shall make a
progress review with the Board of Park Commissioners prior to initiating
purchase action.
o Program Priority. The Department will give first priority to those individuals
or groups who express enthusiastic interest and who actively request assistance
from the Park and Recreation Department.
4-63 O R B ,-;
o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS,ENGINEERS O
o Management of Program By Objectives. The entire recreation program should
be presented to the Board of Park Commissioners for approval. Each program
item should include a statement of objectives (what the Department hopes to
achieve). Upon completion of the season, a completion report should be made to
the Board of Park Commissioners reporting the actual results versus the stated
objectives.
o Balancing of Program Content. Program content should be classified according
to the age group, interest group and sex for which it is designed to serve. Each
year specific program objectives will be initiated to reach groups in which
participation is low. To assist the Department in studying their programs, ORB
has provided a breakdown of the park planning areas population by age and sex
groups in Table 4-6.
o Areas and Facilities. The entire Capital Improvement Program shall be presented
to the Board of Park Commissioners for approval. Each program item should
include a statement of objectives which complements the program objectives and
should be a part of the City's Park and Recreation System Plan. Once approved,
only quarterly progress reports shall be required by the Board. On acquisition
or development projects to be presented to the City Council for approval, special
progress reports shall be made to the Board of Park Commissioners at their
scheduled monthly meetings.
Policy Manual
The policies recommended in this report by no means cover all the areas for which the
Park Board must develop policy. However a policy manual should be immediately
established using the above policies as the initial installment of a guide for every day
Departmental decisions and for long range decisions directed toward achieving the
Departmental goals and objectives.
4-64
O � B ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
O � �
Assistance Considerations:
1) Matching Requirements: At least 50% of total cost of acquisition and development.
2) Length of Assistance Period: For approved projects, 12 months from date of
contract execution to complete activity.
3) Time Phasing of Assistance: Payments made on reimbursement basis only.
Partial payments may be made where 25, 50, and 75% completed.
Urban Beautification and Improvements (HUD) P. L. 89-117 42 USC 1500C-2.
Objectives: To provide grants to expand community activities in the beautification
and improvement of publicly owned and controlled land in urban areas.
Use and Restrictions: Grants may be used for park and recreation upgrading and
development and beautification and similar improvements of waterfronts, streetways
and squares, and other public land.
Assistance Considerations:
1) Matching Requirements: Applicant must pay at least 50% of the amount by which
its expenditures in the current year for beautification and improvement activities
exceed its usual annual expenditure for such activities.
2) Length of Assistance Period: Twelve Months
3) Time Phasing of Assistance: None.
Rivers and Harbors Act (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) Section 103 1962 U.S. C. 426g
Objectives: Control of beach and shore erosion on public shorelines.
Uses and Use Restrictions: Each project must be engineeringly feasible, complete
within itself, and economically justified. Non-federal interests must be responsible
for all project costs in excess of the federal limit of $500, 000. Local sponsor must
maintain completed project.
Assistance Considerations:
1) Type of Grant: Not applicable.
2) Matching Requirements: Not applicable.
3) Length of Assistance Period: Not applicable.
4) Time Phasing of Assistance: Not applicable.
Historic Preservation Grants (HUD) P. L. 87-70
Objectives: Acquisition, restoration, or improvement of sites, structures, or areas
of historic or architectural significance in urban areas, in accord with the comprehen-
sive planned development of the locality. —
5-4
O O E
S 0 1 1 1 G N 0 1 D ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
SFJ33N19N3•StJ3NNd7d-S1031/HOHb'
!A4aadoad alp jo anjun alrj agl jo Iuaoaad 099 of junba aolad u lu asn uolluaaoaa ao
31aud oijgnd :ao3 paSanuoo aq kew Alaadoad juaa snjdans :suopaia4sau asn puu sasfl
•sasodand otlgnd aoI 24.iodoad luea snjdans jo jusodslQ :saelloa,go
•papuauzn su `061 Io I0V saolnaaS anllualslululpV puu Slaadoad
113aapa3 (uollualsluluapV saolnaaS jnaauaq) Iaa oad juag snj anS juaapad jo Inso sIQ
•uollnaaoaa pun `olaolslq `gljuaq ao3
Islxa suzua oad 2ulolad jnloads :sluawaalnbag 2ulgoluW :suollnaapisuoD aouulslssv
•salnlS pallull oI laanaa ljlM puuj 10 ajlll `aolaalul agl Io SanlaaoaS agl Jo Iuasuoo
Inogllnn allll aajsuual ao pa,fanuoo puul golq A aoI Iugl uugl aaulo of puul jo asn a2uugo
of slduaallu lunollddu II •saaon 008 IN mnl Sq papinoad aaagm ao saaou oot 19 su gonuz
su ululuoo XUTu sasodand Maud aInIS ao1 suoiluoilddn Idaoxa saaou 0{�g paaoxa louuno
olluoljddu auo Auu ul aoI pallddu a2uaaoV •886T IT ounr jo Ion aql Idaoxa mul purl oilgnd
aaglo Suu aapun paziaoulnu asn Suu ao3 lou slgl aapun spuul eanoas Iouuuo IuuoljddV
•sasodand oljgnd pun luuolluaaoaa aaglo puu `luauznuouz jnoiaolsiu `uollnaaoaa oilgnd
6luuolluanpa `gljuaq ao,j pasn aq Suva spizul oljgnd alqu[iunV :suollolalsag asfl puu sash
•sasodand ollgnd puu `uolluaaoaa `sluamnuow juoiaolsiu aoj
puul ailgnd alqulrenu aainbou ao asiaal oI slunollddu pai,jilunb lluaaad oy :sanlloa go
•papuauan su `9961 Jo 40V sasoctand puu uolvaaoall (4uauza.!deuvw pu-eZ
jo nuaang) sluauanuopj olaolslll pun saso and oijgnd uolluaaoa�I .1 pun-I ottgnd
•Iaafoad jo uoilaldwoo Illufl :polaad aouu4stssV Io gl2uarl (9
•Iuaoaad OOT Iu papunl axe golgnn
IIoafoad agl Aq poouldslp sassoulsnq ao suosaad of sluoLu Snd uoiluooloa jo Isoo
auI. oI 6jddle Iou soop uotlultuzij sigy '000`001$ paaoxa oI Iou slsoo ajgi�Jija jnlol jo
luaoaad 0g aq Illm slsoo Ioafoad jo oaugs Iuaepa3 oqj, :sluauzaalnbag 2ulgo4L'W (I
:suolluaaplsuoD aouulslssv
•ajgitlja aau uoiluaolsaa Iuuaalxa pun
alus aanlonals aqI 2ul3luuz jo slsoo Sluo `sasodand alnniad aoI pasn aq of sl paaolsaa
aq of aanlonals aqI 3I 'joafoad alq!211a un si sluauodwoo j9uipjlnq aotaalui aqI jo
uolluaolsaa alaldwoo `sisuq auln2aa u uo oilgnd aqa of uado aq Illm aanlonals aqI 3I
•Isaaalul luauuuzaad ao allll sng lunoljddu aqI gaigm oI saanlonals puu `suaan `salls
algl2ila 10 uollnaolsaa aqI puu soanlonals oiaolsiq ao/puu puul ui Isaaalul Iuauuuzaad
Taglo ao atlll 3o uolllslnbou aqI ul slsTssu uzua2oad ags :suollolalsald asll puu sasjl
I
d.J
public health or educational purposes at discounts up to 100 percent; public airport
purposes without monetary consideration; wildlife conservation without monetary
consideration; and for general public purposes without restrictions at a price equal
to the estimated fair market value of the property.
Restrictions: Surplus real property conveyed for public park or recreation use,
public airport use, and wildlife conservation use must be used for the purposes so
conveyed in perpetuity and property conveyed for public health or educational purposes
must be used for those purposes for a period of 30 years.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Table 5-1 illustrates the format of the specific six-year Capital Improvement Program
which is currently being developed through a detailed study of the recommendations
made by ORB in this report. This program will be developed jointly by the Board
of Park Commissioners, the Parks and Recreation Department, the Planning
Department, and ORB.
5-6
O ME B ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS-ENGINEERS
O ��
s�m�J.s3NNV7d.s3311HOdV
&-g
¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
> � � k
m . .
t §
§
q (
G %
c �
k 2
CD � .
�
�
CD 0
§ q
1 2
4�4
�
/ 0 0
a 7 q
} m
d
\
a
@ 0 t-4 CD !
\ 0 ƒ
& R q 2 ®
~ 0 \ |& M
/ 2 / ƒ
§
/ . CD / »
§ ƒ§ 0
a . oo
$ .
0
rn
] . 0 \
7 ? / )
0 $ M . &
p p §
ral )
» R
0
M
/ ƒ CD . \
� �i
r,
Appendix A
f ,
WILDLIFE REPORTED IN THE KENT AREA
TERRESTRIAL BIRDS (Cont.)
deer Duck 7
rabbit Bufflehead
fox Canvasback
coyote Gadwall
skunk Goldeneye, Barrow's
muskrat Goldeneye, Common
beaver Mallard
raccoon Pintail
weasel Redhead
mink Ring-necked
squirrel Ruddy
porcupine Lesser Scaup
chipmunk Shoveler
mole Blue-winged Teal
shrew Cinnamon Teal
meadow mouse Green-winged Teal
bat American Widgeon
European Widgeon
BIRDS (a) Wood
American Bittern Dunlin
Blackbird Bald Eagle
Brewer's Finch
Red-winged House.
American Brant Purple
Western Bluebird Flicker
Common Bushtit Red-shafted
Canary Yellow-shafted
Chickadee Flycatcher
Black-capped Olive-sided
Chestnut-backed Traill's
American Coot Western
Brown-headed Cowbird Lesser Canada Goose
Crane American Goldfinch
Crow Grebe
Common Eared
Northwestern Horned
Mourning Dove Pied-Billed
Dowitcher Western
Long-billed Grosbeak
Short-billed Black-headed
Evening
(a) Listings of Birds by area are atailable at the Kent Parks& Recreation Department.
R S
O O �& (:�40
- I So„ „,�„E „, 81 1„ono ARCH/TECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS
BIRDS (Cont.)
Gull Sandpiper
Bonaparte's Least
California Spotted
Glaucous-winged Western
Short-billed Mew Sapsucker
Ring-billed Yellow-bellied
Hawk Red-breasted _
Cooper's Northern Shrike
Marsh Pine Siskin
Red-tailed Common Snipe
Rough-legged Sparrow
Sharp-shinned Chipping
Sparrow Fox
Great Blue Heron Golden-crowned
Rufous Hummingbird House
Steller's Jay Lincoln's
Oregon Junco Savannah
Killdeer Song
Belted Kingfisher White-crowned
Kinglet Starling
Golden-crowned Swallow
Ruby-crowned Barn
Horned Lark Cliff
Loon Rough-winged
Western Meadowlark Tree
Merganser Violet-green
Common Whistling Swan
Hooded Western Tanager
Common Nighthawk Thrush
Red-breasted Nuthatch Swainson's
Bullock's Oriole Varied
Owl Rufous-sided Towhee
Great Horned Warbling Vireo
Pygmy Turkey Vulture
Saw-whet Warbler
Screech Audubon,s
Short-eared Black-throated
Snowy MacGillivray's
Ring-necked pheasant Orange-crowned
Band-tailed Pigeon Wilson's
Water Pipit Yellow
California Quail Cedar Waxwing
Virginia Rail Woodpecker
Common Raven Downy
Robin Hairy
Pileated
A-2
NCO 3M oN ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS •
i
BIRDS (Cont.)
Wren
Bewick's
Long-billed Marsh
Winter
Yellowlegs
Greater
Lesser
Yellowthroat
6
I
FISH
f Steelhead trout
Cutthroat trout
Rainbow trout
- Bullhead
Silver Salmon
` Catfish
Perch
Bass
Eel
Crayfish
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
frog
garter snake
lizard
salamander
bullfrog
e :
L
O O0�so„ q, „En. 61�Na �o ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS•ENGINEERS