023-08 - Resolution - Appendix 2 to Final Parks PlanCity of Port Orchard 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan
APPENDIX 2
URBAN WATERFRONT WALKWAY
City of Port Orchard
Urban Waterfront Walkway
prepared by:
kasprisin design group
1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Preface •
Community Cooperation and Establishing Goals.
Report Organization . . • • • . • . . . • • •
Long Range Goal: A Continuous Waterfront Walkway
Site Analysis and Minimum Standards
Walkway Width Standards
Overall Site Plan •..
Route Examination: A Closer Look
Public Pier Terminus.
Downtown
Visitor Port
Blackjack Creek
Bay Avenue Beach
Mitchell Point
V. A. Complex
Signage Recommendations •
Implementation
Strategy and Phasing ...
Methods of Financing Segments
2
3
4
4
5
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
23
pacific ocean
r-·
(_l
~-
i
j , mt. ralner
I
? r ~j (! ~-'·-·~1-..J_/
~"'-" ~ ~~~
I
I
.-J • mt. st. helens
April 30, 1985
The Honorable Leslie J. Weatherill
Mayor, City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Dear Mayor Weatherill:
kasprisin design group
A.RCHI'l'ECTURE·URBAN PLANNING-coMMUNITY DESIGN
architects and urban planners
2510 fairview ave. e. seattle, wa. 98102
206. 328· 0900
We are pleased to present the City of Port Orchard with this
report, entitled City of Port Orchard Urban Waterfront Walkway.
The opportunity to prepare a long range walkway m~ster plan for
the Port Orchard waterfront has enabled our design team to assist
the city in advancing one more step toward realization of a dream
many citizens and downto~n merchants have entertained for years:
revitalization and active re-use of the Sinclair Inlet Water-
front. This walkway will provide a better, safer way for the
elderly, handicapped and general citizenry to gain access to
downtown. The project will also greatly improve the visitor use
of one of the city's more dramatic resources, the waterfront.
We realize that funding is limited for a project of this type.
We have, therefore, designed the walkway to be developed in
segments or increments based on the priorities of the city.
We look forward to assisting you and the city in anyway possible
in the implementation of this project and thank you for the
opportunity to once agairi serve the people of Port Orchard.
Sincerely,
Architect
rjk/ry
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Urban Waterfront Walkway
City of Port Orchard
Port Orchard, Washington
1985
Mayor Leslie J. Weatherill
City Council Members
Jack Grable
Robert Geiger
John Clauson
Margaret Jane Miller
Chuck Childress
Jim Wilson
Gerald Grosso
Cit Staff
Larry Curles, City Engineer
Cory Smith
Kasprisin Design Group
Architect and Urban Planners
2510 Fairview Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Ron Kasprisin, Principal-in-Charge
with
Paul Hedrick Design
2510 Fairview Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Use of graphics within this document may be
used only with the expressed written permis-
. sion of the City of Port Orchard or the
Kasprisin Design Group. The graphics may not
be used in the production of any artifact
intended for sale or trade for personal gain
or use.
This project was supported by funds from the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Department of Commerce, administered by the
Department of Ecology, State of Washington.
PREFACE
The City of Port Orchard has commissioned the
Kasprisin Design Group to develop a concep-
tual layout for a waterfront walkway system.
The study area extends from the Lighthouse
Restaurant, near the west end of the city,
along the urban waterfront to the V.A.
residential complex in Retsil. A waterfront
walkway is consistent with Port Orchard's
desire to focus its attention on the water-
front, a valuable visitor industry resource.
i'\ I \
I ,
=
0
{;::;
I
~/
)
~ 0 20CM)4QOD
--....---''-•
........... 1""2000'-0"'
'--------·-·
NORTH
The proposed walkway will also make it easier
for area residents to walk into downtown
along the water with reduced pedestrian
vehicular conflicts. Presently, only the
marina area has a developed pedestrian path
of significant length. Other areas vary in
their ability to handle pedestrians with few
areas having developed walkways.
\
I
!
_ _J
2
JO:MMUNITY COOPERATION
A..ND ESTABLISHING GO.ALS
'o implement a continuous walkway along the
1aterfront will require the cooperation of
orivate and public land owners if the walkway
.s to become a reality. In areas where the
•alkway may cross private land, incentives,
uch as security lighting, may encourage
'wners to participate. The implementation of
waterfront walkway will take time, being
~uilt in sections as funding and opportuni-
ies become available.
800 400 0 800 1800 2 400 jllii......., . .J"' ..... _,_, ....... r·· ..... , .. ,~ m graphic •c.•l• , .. = 800.
NORTH
alnclalr Inlet
The need for an overall design route, with
possible alternatives, should be established
as a long range goal. Subsequently, when
individual developments are designed along
the water, allowance should be made to
ultimately allow the walkway to be contin-
uous. There are certain areas. in the study
area where, given present uses, it will not
be feasible to have the walkway follow the
water. In these cases, it will be built
along the roadway.
Short range goals are projects that can be
funded and implemented and may be either a
special use feature along the route or part
of the walkway itself.
City officials are enthusiastic about the
waterfront revitalization and have already
. initiated severEl projects which wJll be
incorporated into the proposed walkway. They
are: the new public pier being built near
the Lighthouse Restaurant on the DeKalb
Street Waterway; the re-use of the sewage
treatment facility near the marina; and
various landscaping projects near the water-
front. The visitor port facility proposed by
the Port of Bremerton will tie into the
walkway system and enhance Port Orchard's
reputation as a desirable visitor destination
attraction.
REPORTORGAEITZAITON
This report will first show a graphic depic-
tion of a recommended route with possible
alternatives. Then the route will be broken
into segments and each will be discussed in
more detail with conceptual sketches showing
how development may occur. The design team
was also requested to address the issue of
how signage may be used to aid the visitor
and identify points of interest. A final
component will suggest possible funding
sources.
SITE ANALYSIS AND MINIMUM
STANDARDS
The establishment of a recommended route
which the walkway may follow first required
the documentation of the existing shoreline.
Present pedestrian routes were identified and
ranged from developed sidewalks through the
marina area to areas where the roadway press-
es against the waters edge leaving little
room for pedestrians. Areas like those just
mentioned and others where high vehicular use
mixes with unestablished pedestrian routes
have been shown on the site plan as places
where special attention should be given to
pedestrian safety. In some cases these areas
can be avoided by pursuing the waterfront
route away from auto traffic.
Due to the fact that the walkway will be
planned and built in phases, it wlll be
important to arrive at some design guidelines
so future projects along the waterfront can
be incorporated into the system. The first
objective would be that waterfront develop-
ment occurring along the approved route
should make every effort to include provision
for pedestrian through-access. Closed system
development should be discouraged. "Door-
ways" should be left at either end of the
development to tie into future walkway seg-
ments. Establishing some basic walkway
widths and safety features will help the
overall design maintain continuity. These
different situations are shown diagrammati-
cally.
In the more detailed section that follows,
the overall site plan features and particular
problems will be discussed as they occur in
sequence along the route.
4
TH STANDARDS . . ALKWAYWID . ·n a un.t-
'H m-in tun> •0 ·en-viously, ad' g some s._ entl ' . "th ana ~ ·t the s ·oned pre -inclu ln ystem. ~s rn lkway Wla . 11 benefl llow a
wa t res w1 •gh to a . , Eorm fety fea u . wide enou This WJ.l..L iard sa · feet lS · s lk
. h of SlX destrJ.an . the wa -
\ "'dt to pas. PC to occur on t should
>ioyd\·oycle trafho f three fee and the
•nabl e A \u f fer -;one ro tra ffio lanes import-
.ay, tween veh,oula is of pnmary e where
>oour be This buffer led Bay Avenu feet in
ralkwayl. ng heavily travaeges eighteen drail in
ce a o ly aver a guar . n 'n ment on datory, destna he pave h not man dd to pe .. dth. Thoug a will a
'l ffer are he bu
afety.
)VE!aALL SITE PLAN
"' on-grade sidewalk
6ft. " it .,
l !
*boardwalk over water or steep hill
---,i_6ft._r
6
Basically the walkway can be
built as a sidewalk on grade
or as a boardwalk built on
piers along the waters edge.
As the latter technique is
more costly, an effort has
been made to identify a route
on grade where possible. In
other areas it may be
necessary to incorporate a
~alkway into future seawall
replacement projects.
PUBLIC PIER TERMINUS
l. In conjunction with the
Lighthouse Restaurant the
DeKalb Street Pier, which
has been recently com-
pleted, will act as a
terminus for the water-
front walkway.
A choice must be then be
made w~ether to circum-
vent the waterfront
buildings and follow the
shoreline or follow the
highway into town.
The shoreline option is
certainly the more scenic
and this route could
connect to the walk
behind the Ki tsap County
Bank building.
Because the public boat
launch is a high activity
area, this would be an
ideal viewing rest area
for walkers. Essentially
this would be a small
seating area in a safe
location.
The shaded area along Bay
Street presently has no
designated pedestrian
areas. A raised sidewalk
should incorporate shared
curbcuts to minimize
auto-pedestrian interfer-
ence.
PUBLIC PIER TERMINUS
---
-"ll ~ (;~ \ .. ·. ·t
KEY: ~ ~ (' . /:t)
WALKWAY TYPES ll:J
••••••••••••••••• EXJSTING SIDEWALK OR BOARDWALK
••••••••PROPOSED ON-GRADE SIDEWALK
-·-•-PROPOSED BOARDWALK OR CONCRETE SEAWALL
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY REQUIRES
ATTENTION IN THESE AREAS
() "EC>AL "" mTURE ALONO WALKWAY
IMAGE: A existing ....-----------------------
' '·' .,
proposed
a
4. The abandoned water
treatment facility will
be refurbished to provide
a viewing area for the
marina activity.
Pedestrian routes are
well defined as one
enters a downtown and the
marina area.
+--~-----·-------·--· ·--------------------------------------------
IMAGE B existing
-----------"" ---~----~
proposed
10
5 • This location along the
existing boardwalk would
be a good location for a
covered bus stop with
limited seating for
visitor port viewing.
This presently is a bus
stop area for the Ki tsap
County Bus System.
l. The planned visitor Port
facility should benefit
the City and compliment
the waterfront walkway.
'· This is an area where a
steep hills ide abuts the
roadway and a pedestrian
route would require a
pier system of construc-
tion.
I. The Port of Bremerton has
already designated this
parcel for a park deve-
lopment. The park will
be an excellent visitor
facility but provision
should be made to allow a
walkway connection
between the boardwalk and
a future walkway along
Bay Street.
1
This section is a bottle-
neck with a limited
shoulder area along Bay
Street. Some existing
buildings appear abandon-
ed and others press
against the roadway.
Future uses should
include an easement for
the walkway as this
property is situated in
the Bay Street right-of-
way.
VISITOR PORT
•
12
0.
1.
ation of cooper the With the d owners, t e lan porate P riva ld incor f k ay cou . on o wal w . sectl t
scenlc from mos a line away shore ffic. auto tra
. dge over . brl b A pedestrlan l< would e
. acl< Cree . nt for Blacl<J tage pOl d.-
ood van In ad l
a gb r viewing. t this
har o a bridge a. ate a
tion' ld allevl . u-. t wou . vehlc po~nt of maJor nflicts
poln destrian co'dge. lar-pe . ting brl the exls
on Shopping
West Bay · gnated At th: no des~ wall<-
Cente ~s exist. center wall<w~ehind thesant and
way be a plea for
would alternative safer
tr.ians. pedes
~~·· f/
7::-.
I
rM:AGE:C proposed
14
2. This beach area is one of
the few natural beaches
within the downtown. The
property is privately
owned and not presently
available to be developed
for public use, it
appears, however, that
locals and visitors park
cars nearby to catch the
harbor view. An organi-
zed approach to some
parking and a walkway
will help preserve this
natural amenity.
3. Waterfowl congregate
along this portion of
shoreline making it an
appropriate location for
a small rest area. As
this is also a long
unbroken stretch of
walkway, the rest area
may especially be
appreciated by senior
citizen users.
--~ ______ " _____ -------------"""" -----"" ____ "_" -------
Point
• I
' . . ·-·--'
BAY AVE. BEACH
IMAGE: D existing
-·-·
proposed
16
l4. Local resident reports
indicate this section of
roadway is not properly
drained, causing the
shoulder area to flood
after heavy rains. Walk-
ers must use the narrow
driving lanes to circum-
vent the flooded areas.
5. Mitchell Point can become
an area designed for
local community use as
well as rest/viewing
point for visitors. A
small covered seating
area with an open fire
pit would make this an
excellent location to
watch harbor activity in
the evening as well as
during the day.
l. Presently this short
section of roadway has
shoulder area width of
only two feet. Wa 1 kers
are restricted to an area
between the vehicular
travel lane and a de-
pressed seawall.
MHo hell r·-·. i .
MlTCBELL POlNT
Th1AGE E existing
proposed
18
17. Due to the close proxi-
mity of the buildings to
Beach Drive at Arnold
Avenue, it is advisable
to use the land side of
the street for the walk-
way. This should include
improved crosswalk
identification over what
now exists to alert
motorists of traffic.
9
The trail on the hill
from the V.A. residence
should be improved at
least along the lower
section. In its present
condition, broken and
twisted handrails and
uneven ground offer
little incentive for
potential users. To
re-establish this pathway
with realistic and com-
fortable walking grades
removes pedestrian
traffic from Beach Drive,
a road poorly sui ted for
pedestrians.
.,\,~1 ...
, V. A?j··H .. ESID .. 'NTIAi'<Co>OeLCX
' i
'< \.
· .. \,) !'
IMAGE F existing
proposed
20
SIGNAGE RECOM:MENDATIONS
The purpose of a signuge system will be to
provide information to users on the features
of Sinclair Inlet and help loc?te their posi-
tion on the walkway.
On the opposite page is a sketch of a small
information center. As noted on the accom-
panying map, these may be installed at the
three locations indicated on the plan. They
could include a short local history; a map of
the Sinclair Inlet vicinity noting special
features which can be seen across the water;
and, a map of the walkway.
identification signage
Vandal1sm is 3 concern fo:c "Street Furni-
ture." Ideally, the signs should be made
with a substanti&l base such as concrete with
stocky wooden members. The map area would be
covered with vandal resistant plastic and
could be replaced if damaged wi tho~.;t having
to repair the map surface.
The lower sketch would be typical of identi-
fication signage. It is designed primarily
for pedestrians and therefore could be un-
obstructive to views and incorporated into
the design of the rest area or seawall.
map locations
walkway information center
PORT ORCHARD
WALKWAY MAP
22
3TRATEGY ANDPHASING
A strategy for accomplishing the walkway
should focus on the critical nodes or gather-
ing areas along the walkway as well as impor-
tant walkway segments which are unencumbered
JY private ownership issues. Therefore, the
niority of walkway increments should be as
follows:
r.
II.
III.
IV.
Nodes on public property;
Walkway segments on public property
which would alleviate or reduce
potentially unsafe areas;
Walkway segments on public property
which are important connections
between special features, or provide
access to special features;
Walkway segments on private property
where the private landowner is will-
ing to cooperate with the overall
program.
v. Walkway segments which can be con-
structed as 'spin-off' projects
associated with larger, more exten-
sive public infrastructure projects.
number of these phasing increments can be
Jrsued and developed concurrently.
aETHODS OF FINANCING SEG:MENTS
lblic sector walkway segments and nodes can
~ financed in part by various state and
!deral programs.
1ese programs are diverse and require
1mmi tment by the City and/ or the Port for
igibility.
l.
2.
3.
4.
The City of Port OrchDrd Capitol
Public Improvements Program, as
financed by local taxes. The walkway
segments should be prioritized by
downtown and neighborhood districts
and included within the city's
streets and sidewalk program;
State of Washington Inter Agency Com-
mittee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
has available 50% matching grants for
public recreation projects which pro-
vide access to the waterfront are
participatory (jogging, walking, bike
riding, viewpoints, etc.), and family
oriented. Application for funding
should be made to IAC by May 1985 for
consideration for funding. This is
one of the more reliable and avail-
able sources. Competition is keen
and grant packages should be well
prepared.
The State Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, Community Econ-
omic Revitalization Board (CERB) pro-
vides low interest loans through
municipalities for public improve-
ments necessary to stimulate private
investment and job creation. The
Port of Bremerton could qualify for
these funds to construct walkway and
node projects in conjunction with new
visitor moorage.
The Washington State Community Deve-
lopment Block Grant Program could
assist particularly as this project
benefits low and moderate income
citizens by providing public recrea-
tion and access to the water: would
resolve problems which could allevi-
ate potentially health and safety
problems for pedestrians: and would
provide special projects directed to
the removal of architectural barriers
which restrict the mobility and
accessibility of elderly and handi·-
capped persons. Property acquisition
could be on eligible project cost.
5. A local improvements district could
be formed, by city district, for the
non-city wide or neighborhood share
of the project. While an L.I.D. may
not be the most popular approach for
local residents, the City may parti-
cipate and pay the majority share
with a smaller L.I.D. benefiting
adjacent property owners.
6. The Economic Development Administra-
tion's Public Works Assistance Pro-
gram may be a valid source for deve-
loping publicly-owned recreational
facilities to develop the area's
tourism.
All of these programs are discussed at length
in the Port Orchard Waterfront Revitalization
Project, 1983 under Chapter 3, The Next Step:
Strategy and Implementation.
The strength of the waterfront project
regarding its competitiveness for state and
federal funds lies in three key areas:
First, the project will benefit elderly,
handicapped, and/ or low income residents of
Port Orchard, and specifically the Veterans
Administration have to gain improved access
to downtown services; second, the project
will reduce the potential vehicular-pedes-
trian confli~ts which presently exists along
the waterfront road network; and, third, the
project will support the visitor use of the
waterfront, thus strengthing the visitor
industry economic objectives of the city.
In any event, the total project can be phased
accordingly to the needs and budget. Accomp-
lishing at least one segment of the walkway
system each year will provide functional and
visual impact and maintain community momen-
tum.
•
24