City of prosser


Parks and Recreation Inventory and Needs Assessment



Download 1.04 Mb.
Page9/11
Date conversion03.05.2018
Size1.04 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Parks and Recreation Inventory and Needs Assessment

Parks Inventory

Since 1904, when George Dunn dedicated a parcel of land to the City, recreation has contributed an important element to the growth of Prosser. Through the efforts of the City of Prosser, with the support of many private organizations, a variety of recreational facilities are available. Available recreational programs and facilities are intended to fit the needs of all age groups. Today, the City has a total of 27 acres of parkland.

Park Types



There are national standards that classify parks according to the functions and services the parks provide to a community. These include (as applied to the range of parks appropriate for a small City such as Prosser):
Neighborhood Parks:

Description: These parks include both active and passive recreation opportunities for residents within a convenient walking or biking distance. They can include informal, non- programmed open multi-use playfield or open space, baseball and soccer fields, basketball, tennis or volleyball courts and playgrounds. These parks may include natural areas and may allow for park trails and nature study. Neighborhood parks can serve as the recreation and social hub of several neighborhoods.

Service area: Approximately 1/2 of a mile radius.

Size: No Minimum to approximately 15+ acres.

Desirable Characteristics: These parks should be in close proximity to dwellings and/or employment centers of activity. Neighborhood parks should be designed for intensive use and should be accessible and visible from surrounding area. Often such parks may be associated with school facilities when those facilities do not have limited access. Restroom facilities are a recommended improvement in these parks.

Community and Regional Parks:


Description: These parks are larger in size serving a broader purpose than neighborhood parks. In smaller communities it is often appropriate to combine features associated with both community and regional parks into one park type (regional facilities are usually associated with natural features that may attract users from a wide variety of areas, such as the Yakima River). These parks often allow for group activities and offer other recreational opportunities not feasible or desirable at the neighborhood level. Facilities may include community centers, stadiums, swimming pools, skate board parks, lighted and unlighted athletic fields for baseball, soccer, football and basketball and tennis courts, playgrounds, trails picnic shelters, and parking lots. They attract citizens from throughout the community and beyond.

Service area: Approximately 1 to 2 mile radius.

Size: Approximately 2 to 20 acres.

Desirable Characteristics: These parks should have ample flat areas suitable for the development of active recreational facilities in the form of athletic fields. They should also provide pleasing visual amenities and offer a wide range of recreational facilities. In some cases, these facilities might be oriented to specific, unique recreational or visual amenities, such as proximity to rivers or water bodies. While these parks should be easily accessible from the surrounding neighborhoods, it is more important that they have good access to the entire community by automobile since larger community parks need to serve the entire community.

Special Interest Parks


Use Description: These parks are for specialized or single purpose recreational activities such as plazas, downtown amenities, walking and bicycle trails, skateboard parks, street ends, arenas or areas that preserve buildings, sites or features of historical significance. Service area: Variable


Size: Depends on nature of facility.

Desirable Characteristics: Compatibility with adjacent facilities and uses.

Park Supply

Prosser has the following parks within each classification.



Neighborhood Parks: There are two parks that generally meet the description of neighborhood parks; Market Street Park (including a large developable, but undeveloped, right of way area west of Market Street) and Grant Park. Both parks are primarily improved open-space areas with no formal recreational facilities installed. Grant Park is a small park of less than an acre that provides excellent water front views, including views of the dam. Market Street Park is a larger open space area straddling Market Street at the entrance to the City from the south from State Route 22. It includes an improved open-space area on the east side of the street and an unimproved open-space area on the west side. It is a pleasant landscaped area with lawn and trees, and presents a pleasing visual entrance to the City. There are no facilities within the park, but it is used for casual informal picnic or open play, such as informal soccer, on the grass area. The park could accommodate some limited recreational facilities such as, a playground.

Community and Regional Parks: The City has four parks that meet the description of community park.

Farrand and Crawford Parks earn this designation due to their location together on the south shore of the Yakima River. This location provides good access to the river and water-oriented recreational opportunities to residents of Prosser and the surrounding area. These parks are improved with restrooms and playfields. Crawford includes a boat ramp, picnic shelter, rest-room, playfield, and riverfront path. Farrand Park includes picnic facilities and rest-rooms on a wooded and grassy site. The park also contains a City well.

Miller Park contains the municipal outdoor 36 meter 40 yard swimming pool and bathhouse. Since 1976, the park has had an outdoor basketball court, playground facilities, wading pool, storage shed and open play areas. Added since 1976 are three lighted tennis courts, a covered picnic pavilion with sink and barbecue pit, and rest-room facilities. The pavilion is heavily booked during the summer months for reunions and receptions. The park is located across the street from Riverview Elementary School which allows for some joint use by the school. In 2006 a skate board park was added to the Park.

City Park is one of the more heavily used parks in the City. It is located near the high school and augments the athletic and community center uses of the school facilities. The facilities in the park include a picnic area, playground equipment, rest-rooms, museum building, facilities for civic festivals, outdoor theater, and open play. While the rest rooms have been modernized since 1976, the only added facility is basketball hoops.

Special Needs Parks: In addition to the basic recreational facilities provided by neighborhood and community parks the City has a series of special needs park facilities including:

6th and Sherman Park (parcels 102841020004016 and 102844020025006), located at 6th and Sherman, provides open space amenities to the downtown entrance. This park is associated with the triangle known as “flag pole park” and the parcel across the street known as “well park.”

Rotary Park is a site developed as an “entrance” type park greeting people as they enter the main part of the City just before crossing the bridge on Wine Country Road.

Depot Square is at the north edge of the City’s immediate downtown. Although it is extensively developed as a parking lot, its open, landscaped character provides some plaza-type amenities to the downtown area.

In addition to City-owned park and recreational facilities there are additional recreational opportunities provided on school campuses at:


  • Whitstran Elementary School

  • Housel Middle School

  • Prosser High School

Needs Assessment

The first way that park and recreational needs are usually assessed is in terms of the area provided by different types of parks relative to population. Based on national standards for parks and recreation, Prosser ideally should have 35 additional acres of parks. These needs are delineated on Table 26. This Figure compares the City’s supply of different types of parks to national standards. Two national standard benchmarks are compared;




  • Standards developed by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA),a group of recreation professionals and recreation-oriented interest groups, and

  • Other standards developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) which provide a perspective from the development community, as well as others associated with urban development.


Table 26: Inventory of Existing Parks Compared to National Park Standards

City Park Classification and Needs

City Park

Estimate of Acres (From GIS)

National Standards and Supply:

Acres/1000 Population*


Needs
(NRPA)

Deficit

National

Recreation

and Parks Urban Land

Association Institude



(NRPA) (ULI) City Supply

Neighborhood



















Market Street Park

3.44
















Grant Park

0.84
















Total__4.28'>Neighborhood Total

4.28

2

2

0.84

10.15


(5.87)

Community Only



















City Park

4.18
















Miller Park

6.03
















Community Only Total

10.21

5-8













Regional/Community

















Crawford Park

4.88
















Farrand Park

5.68
















Regional/Community Only Total

10.57

5-10













Regional/Community Total

20.78

10

3.5

4.09

50.75

(29.97)

Total


25.05

12

5.5

4.94

60.90

(35.85)

Other
















Special Interest

6th & Sherman Park



0.48













Flag Pole Park

0.23













Rotary Park

0.17











Depot Square

1.27













Special Interest Total

2.15













City Park Total

27.20













Population 5,075














*National standards for "Regional" not applied since it is inappropriate for small cities.









Since the NRPA is a recreation-oriented interest group, their standards can be considered a more ideal benchmark. The ULI, representing a different set of interest groups, which are more development oriented, offer a more conservative approach. By the NRPA benchmarks, the City has a deficit of 35 acres (almost six in neighborhood parks and almost 30 acres in community parks), while it is near the benchmark provided by the ULI. These standards are not generally applied to special interest parks.

A planning study conducted in 2008 examined the supply of park facilities in comparison to the existing and planned residential areas of the City. Map 5 and Map 11 in that study, Land Use Patterns, Trends, and Needs, compared the location of City parks with the service area defined above for each type of park. Those maps demonstrate that there is an absence of appropriate access to parks in the northern part of the City. The developing residential areas in the northern part of the City should have accessible play areas and other recreational amenities associated with neighborhood parks. While there are neighborhood parks in the southern part of the City, these parks do not have the type of playground areas usually associated with such parks.

The community parks together provide a wide range of park features normally associated with such parks. However, developed sports fields are absent, relying on the school facilities to meet these needs. While many communities do integrate their park systems with the supply of school facilities, most still have sports fields in order to provide some balance with the educational purposes and needs, which must take priority with the use of school facilities.

The City has a limited trail system, consisting primarily of developed right-of-way along Wine Country Road for pedestrians and bicycles. Particularly appropriate potentials for trails are along the river west of Farrand Park and on the hillsides south of town. The City should also explore and require appropriate pedestrian connections in and between new subdivision as the undeveloped areas develop. The city should also work with the county to continue to develop and implement a countywide system of bicycle facilities, with special attention to developing a route along Highway 22 and the railroad west of the city.


nn






Chapter XII


CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Introduction
The Capital Facilities Plan brings all of the other comprehensive plan elements together by considering and planning the major public investments that will be needed to carry out the vision and policies of the rest of the plan.
The Capital Facilities Plan or Element consists of two parts. The first part presents policies to guide the development of capital facilities with the continued development of the community. This first part includes policies to reassess the comprehensive plan if probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs. The second part describes the planned capital facilities development program to meet the community’s need with identifiable resources. This second part includes:


  • An inventory of existing facilities,

  • An identification of the facilities needed (and their general location), to support the comprehensive plan, including the facilities necessary to serve the UGA,

  • A long-range financial strategy to finance the facilities needed to support the plan, and

  • A six-year capital facility development program known as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) goals and policies assist the community in achieving community goals, as defined in the Prosser ‘Vision Statement.’ The capital facilities goals, policies, and strategies are listed as follows:

Capital Facility Policies (Policy changes noted in edit format)




1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page