DOCSLIB.ORG

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need for Concept Plan This Concept Plan Was Developed for Use As a Guide in Managing and Enhanc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need for Concept Plan This Concept Plan was developed for use as a guide in managing and enhancing Frink and Upper Leschi Parks (referred to throughout the plan as “the Park”). The main users of the plan will be Friends of Frink Park (FFP), Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), and volunteers and consultants organized by these two groups. The primary purpose of the plan is to guide these organizers in improving the Park in ways that reflect the desires and needs of Park users, and that are based on ecologically-sound principles. The plan is intended to give voice and shape to a long-term vision for managing the natural, recreational, and cultural resources of the Park. The need for this plan was identified by the local community – those who use the Park. A group of these people formed a community organization known as Friends of Frink Park, which eventually initiated the process of developing this plan. A number of problems have been identified in the Park by DPR, FFP and other users, such as declining forest health and a lack of plant diversity, a severe invasive plant problem, a confusing trail system with steep slippery trails and deteriorating stairways, a deeply eroded stream, and a lack of awareness of the Park’s cultural and historical legacy. In addition to these existing issues, there currently is no long-term plan for restoring the resources in the Park, or even for regular maintenance. The Park has suffered from a general lack of active management and resources from the City. This is a likely consequence of the fact that the Park is not a city-wide destination that draws significant numbers of users. It is a densely forested urban Park that is limited in the types of uses it will accommodate, and as such, has received less attention than the more popular parks in Seattle. Park users have stepped into this void and volunteered significant time and effort towards improving trails and managing invasive plants. This deep investment in the Park by its neighbors clearly demonstrates the need for a plan that is developed with extensive citizen involvement. This plan is an attempt to balance the needs of these citizens with the policies and objectives of Seattle DPR. 1.2 Primary Participants in Plan Development The organizations described below were integral to developing this Concept Plan, and therefore constitute the project team. The plan would not exist without the significant contributions of each organization. Friends of Frink Park (FFP) − The idea for this Concept Plan was hatched by FFP, a non-profit community group of committed Park users. FFP provided the impetus for initiating the plan, secured funding for the planning process, and selected the consultant that would coordinate the effort to develop the plan. Members of FFP supervised the planning process, organized and attended project team planning meetings, contributed content for specific sections of the plan, compiled survey results, offered comment and presentations on the process at public meetings, and provided feedback on draft versions of the plan. As the plan was developed, FFP organized work parties to continue ongoing projects and to start new projects that would be included in the plan. Frink Park / Upper Leschi Park Concept Plan July 14, 2000 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 1-1 Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) − Staff of DPR participated in the planning process by attending project team planning meetings and presenting at public meetings. The staff developed sections of the plan and provided maps and mapping resources to the process. DPR staff provided feedback on draft versions of the plan and helped implement portions of the plan by organizing work parties in the Park. The Park is, of course, owned and managed by DPR, and the agency thus makes the final determination as to the plan contents and the manner in which plan sections are ultimately implemented. Sheldon & Associates (S&A) − Sheldon & Associates is the environmental consulting firm that was hired to manage the planning process and develop the Concept Plan. S&A staff coordinated planning efforts among project team members and attended project team planning meetings. They determined the components of the planning process, organized and ran the public meetings, organized public tours, developed public surveys, authored sections of the plan, developed graphics for the plan, provided feedback to other authors of plan sections, and compiled and edited the plan. J&A Associates (J&A) − J&A Associates is a consulting firm that was hired by DPR to provide historic information and review of the Concept Plan. J&A partners provided the historic research and documentation for Section 3 and a review of the Concept Plan as it relates to historic context. 1.3 Goals of Concept Plan The main goals for this plan were developed based on public feedback from meetings, questionnaires, guided tours of the Park, a detailed survey, information and comments from FFP members; and planning team meetings. These broad goals are meant to communicate an overall vision for the Park and the Concept Plan. Following the major goals of the plan are the more specific goals for each resource plan which are discussed in more detail in each following section. Major Goals of Plan 1. Make the Park and park features more inviting to park users while retaining the sense of ungroomed, natural space. 2. Find a balance between neighborhood concerns and park visibility, access and usage. 3. Restore forest habitat for long term sustainability. 4. Integrate Olmsted vision and historic features with current use, site conditions, and long-term management so as to balance the dynamic characteristics of an ecological landscape with the value of a cultural landscape. 5. Establish and facilitate long-term stewardship of Frink/Upper Leschi Parks. 6. Restore and enhance aquatic resources. 7. Generate funding for management of Park. Frink Park / Upper Leschi Park Concept Plan July 14, 2000 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 1-2 Forest Management Plan Goals • Assist natural processes • Promote native character • Conserve soil and water quality • Protect and enhance wildlife habitat • Buffer land uses • Ensure public safety Trail Plan Goals • Clarify the trail system of the park for users • Remedy unsafe trail conditions such as broken stairs and steep slippery slopes • Correct conditions that are causing trail damage such as ponding, erosion, and trampling • Re-route trails that are poorly aligned or located • Close certain trails to prevent slope damage and undesirable use • Provide a more complete experience of the Park's features by constructing trails to take people to these places • Maintain the valued sense of intimacy throughout the Park's trail network • Provide improved loop route through the Park that minimizes elevational changes and the need for walking on roads • Create a walking trail alongside Lake Washington Boulevard Aquatic Resource Plan Goals • Collect baseline information on the stream and assess its specific needs • Stabilize stream channel by reducing downcutting and erosion • Decrease invasive plant species coverage in riparian corridor and in wetlands • Increase native plant species diversity in riparian corridor and in wetlands • Increase opportunities for aesthetic enjoyment of stream corridor and wetlands • Enhance wildlife habitat in riparian corridor and in wetlands Edge Plan Goals • Better maintain and define vegetated Park edge along public corridors • Identify Park boundary using vegetation, vegetation management techniques, and/or signage as appropriate • Increase use of the Park by neighbors who currently feel the Park is uninviting and unsafe due to its outward appearance • Increase stewardship of the Park • Reduce incidences of dumping in the Park by limiting vehicle pullouts and educating local residents • Educate local residents about invasive species issues and gardening adjacent to a natural area • Enhance park identity through coherent design elements Frink Park / Upper Leschi Park Concept Plan July 14, 2000 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Page 1-3 Education/ Public Outreach Plan Goals • Broaden the volunteer base • Increase educational opportunities for Park users • Prioritize and implement the Concept Plan • Determine the future organization of FFP, and create an efficient and streamlined infrastructure • Assess how the Education/Public Outreach Plan might best be implemented • Initiate a school outreach program Sign Plan Goals • Identify Park boundaries to reduce Park’s anonymity • Clarify public access points • Provide way-finding assistance for trail users • Provide users with interpretive information about the Park • Ensure that all signs adhere to a theme that is consistent with the naturalistic features and historic legacy of the Park 1.4 Organization and Intended Use of Plan A “concept” plan is one in which goals and general design ideas are proposed; highly detailed drawings such as grading plans or site-specific planting plans are generally not included. This broad approach allows for the plan to cover most major issues that need to be addressed in the Park, while leaving specific design decisions to those who will actually be implementing individual sections of the plan. The plan is intended as a guidance document with recommendations for ways to achieve stated goals. In that it is not a cookbook with detailed recipes for altering the Park, implementation of recommended projects may require further research and/or consultation with resource
Recommended publications
  • Document Analysis Questions

    Document Analysis Questions

    Captain John L. Anderson Document Analysis Instructions (2 image analysis and 2 SOAPS document analysis tools) Document Instructions Biography Read aloud, highlight significant information (who, what, when, and where) Document 1 How many steamboats? Anderson Steamboat Co. Ferry Schedule How many sailings? How many places does it travel? What does this document say about the Lake Washington steamboat business? What does this document say about the people who used the steamboats? What does this document say about transportation in general? Document 2 Complete image analysis graphic organizer Photograph of Anderson Shipyards 1908 Document 3 Complete image analysis graphic organizer Photograph of Anderson Shipyards 1917 Document 4 Complete SOAPS document analysis graphic organizer News article from Lake Washing- ton Reflector 1918 Document 5 Complete SOAPS document analysis graphic organizer News article from East Side Jour- nal 1919 How did the lowering of Lake Summarize all of the evidence you found in the documents. Washington impact Captain Anderson? Positive Negative Ferry Fay Burrows Document Analysis Instructions (2 image analysis and 3 SOAPS document analysis tools) Documents Instructions Biography Read aloud, highlight significant information (who, what, when, and where) Document 1 1. Why did Captain Burrows start a boat house? Oral History of Homer Venishnick Grandson of Ferry Burrows 2. How did he make money with the steam boat? 3. What fueled this ship? 4. What routes did Capt. Burrows take the steamboat to earn money? 5. What happened to the steamboat business when the lake was lowered? 6. What happened to North Renton when the lake was lowered? Document 2 1. What does “driving rafts” mean and how long did it take? Interview with Martha Burrows Hayes 2.
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form

    National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form

    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. ___X___ New Submission ________ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Seattle’s Olmsted Parks and Boulevards (1903–68) B. Associated Historic Contexts None C. Form Prepared by: name/title: Chrisanne Beckner, MS, and Natalie K. Perrin, MS organization: Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) street & number: 1904 Third Ave., Suite 240 city/state/zip: Seattle, WA 98101 e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] telephone: (503) 247-1319 date: December 15, 2016 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. _______________________________ ______________________ _________________________ Signature of certifying official Title Date _____________________________________ State or Federal Agency or Tribal government I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
  • From Tent to Temple by Eugene Pease, 1959 and Earlier U

    From Tent to Temple by Eugene Pease, 1959 and Earlier U

    The 120-Year Story of University Temple United Methodist Church (1890–2010) University Temple United Methodist Church 1415 NE 43rd Street Seattle, Washington 98105 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................ i Preface .................................................................................................................. iv 1. How Firm a Foundation ............................................. 1 Methodism on Seattle's Northern Frontier (1) A Growing Congregation's Ambitious Plans (4) “I Will Build My Church” (5) A Walk Through God’s House (8) The Sanctuary Stained Glass Windows (13) A Block-Long Methodist Presence (16) The Education Wing Sander Memorial Chapel The Church Library Where The Money Came From (23) A Brief Financial History The Crisis of 1935 The Memorial and Endowment Funds 2. The Pastors and Staff .................................................. 30 The Preaching Ministry (30) The Music Ministry (57) Religious Education (73) The Church Office (75) 3. The Congregation .......................................................... 79 United Methodist Women (80) A Brief History The Christmas Gift Banquet The Quilting Group The Sewing Group Wesleyan Service Guild/Jennie Fulton Guild Susannah Wesleyan Service Guild Christian Social Relations Fellowship and Service Groups (93) Triple F and Supper Club Young Adult Beacon Club Meriweds/In-Betweeners Temple Two’s/The Collection Methodist Men Organization Temple Men: The Working Methodists
  • Leschi/Judkins Park

    Leschi/Judkins Park

    LESCHI/JUDKINS PARK DEVELOPMENT SITE SEATTLE SBD CAPITOL HILL PIONEER SQUARE JUDKINS PARK CENTRAL DISTRICT LESCHI KIRKLAND REDMOND UNIVERSITY DISTRICT FREMONT WALLINGFORD MADISON VALLEY QUEEN ANNE CAPITOL SLU MADISON HILL PARK MADRONA SEATTLE CBD CENTRAL BELLEVUE DISTRICT LESCHI LESCHI/JUDKINS PARK DEVELOPMENT SITE FUTURE JUDKINS PARK LIGHT RAIL STATION (2023) MT. BAKER BEACON HILL MERCER ISLAND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OFFERING Amazing Leschi/Judkins Park Opportunity! How often do you find a perfect project that literally bridges Seattle & Eastside Employment Hubs & is smartly sited in a charming neighborhood w/ coveted amenities & parks? It’s rare. This sizeable, partially permitted 20 townhouse project w/ an unbeatable location is a mere .5 mi to upcoming Eastlink Light Rail station, which will seamlessly connect Seattle & Eastside employment options. Your end-user pool just doubled. Look to the post-COVID urban lifestyle demand this project offers. 3 tax parcels- 25,451 sq ft in total, zoned LR2. If Light Rail & local mixed-use redevelopment hubs don’t excite you, perhaps the short 15 min drive to all Major employment centers of DT Seattle, SLU & Bellevue will. Seller is pursuing permits for a 20-unit townhouse project currently in the entitlement process, past Design Review with the City of Seattle. NAME Leschi/Judkins Park Development Site 800 28th Ave S, Seattle, WA 98144 ADDRESS 811 29th Ave S, Seattle, WA 98144 2801 S Dearborn St, Seattle, WA 98144 PARCEL NUMBERS 636290-0265, 056700-0612, 056700-0614 LOT SQUARE FEET 9,779 + 7,946 + 7,726 = 25,451 Square Feet ZONING LR2 (M) PRICE $6,300,000 PRICE PER LOT FOOT $246 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 20 Townhouses TERMS Cash Out This information has been secured from sources we believe to be reliable, but we make no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the information.
  • History of the Central Area

    History of the Central Area

    History of the Central Area Thomas Veith Seattle Historic Preservation Program City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2009 Contents The Central Area Defined p. 3 Preliminaries p. 5 Territorial Period: 1853 – 1889 p. 12 Early Urbanization: 1890 – 1918 p. 25 Between the Wars: 1918 – 1940 p. 49 The Years of Transition: 1940 – 1960 p. 53 Period of Turmoil: 1960 - 1980 p. 63 The Central Area Today p. 85 Bibliography p. 89 Appendix A: Landmarks p. 93 The Central Area Defined Unlike some Seattle neighborhoods, the Central Area has never existed as a political entity separate from the City of Seattle. In addition the Central Area‟s development was not part of a unified real state scheme with coordinated public improvements (such as the Mount Baker community). For these reasons, it has never had official boundaries and various writers describe its extent in various ways. Almost all attempts to describe the neighborhood include a core area bounded by Madison Street on the north, Jackson Street on the south, 15th Avenue on the west, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (formerly Empire Way) on the east. In 1975, Nyberg and Steinbrueck identified the eastern boundary of the Central Area as 30th Avenue (more or less), and also included extensions to the north and south of the core area. The extension to the south of Jackson Street was bounded by 30th Avenue (approximately) on the east, Interstate 90 on the south, and the mid-block alley just east of Rainier Avenue South on the west. The extension to the north of Madison Street was bounded on the west by 23rd Avenue, on the east by the Washington Park Arboretum, and extended north to a line just north of East Helen Street marking the boundary between the plats known as the Madison Park Addition and the Hazelwood Addition Supplemental.1 Walt Crowley describes the neighborhood as a “sprawling residential district .
  • Go for a Hike (In the City) Healthy Environment Stories

    Go for a Hike (In the City) Healthy Environment Stories

    Go for a Hike (in the City) Healthy Environment Stories Are you looking for a place to connect with nature or just relax but can’t make a trip to the mountains? Try a trail right in the city! Seattle parks are home to some 96 miles of “soft” trails in forested, beach, bluff, and meadow areas where you can walk, hike, run, and in some cases ride trail bikes. The U.S. Forest Service has recognized trails for their recreational value since the 1930s, and for their contributions to our health and well-being since the 1960s. The popularity of trails continues to increase. They provide access to environmentally sensitive areas while protecting those areas themselves by encouraging people to stay on their groomed surfaces. At Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR), Chukundi “Trails Guy” Salisbury has tended, created, and overseen our trails for the last 17 years. Asked what he thinks are the main reasons people use and love their trails, Salisbury says without hesitation, “to get out into the forests and green spaces of the city, to walk or otherwise exercise, and because they’re free and accessible – there are trails in parks in every corner of the city.” In 2011, Salisbury brought his brain child to life by creating the Youth Green Corps, a nine-month annual program that recruits youth between the ages of 18 and 24, trains them in trail construction and maintenance, and provides them with a stipend. Many of the youth are homeless, disengaged or from underserved communities, and the program provides them with direction, education, life skills, a love of the outdoors, and a path to a green career.
  • Historic Property Survey Report: Seattle's Neighborhood Commercial

    Historic Property Survey Report: Seattle's Neighborhood Commercial

    HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT: SEATTLE’S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Prepared by: Mimi Sheridan Cultural Resource Specialist Prepared for: City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program 700 Third Avenue, Seattle WA 98104 November 2002 PROJECT SUMMARY In 2000 the City of Seattle began a multi-year effort to update its inventory of historic resources throughout the city. Existing information, primarily from the 1970s, was out of date and inadequate to meet the challenges of growth management and the threats to the city’s traditional character posed by increasing demand for housing and commercial space. Two building categories and one neighborhood were selected for the initial round of surveys: neighborhood commercial districts, buildings constructed before 1905, and the University District. This report focuses on the methodology and findings of the survey and inventory of Seattle’s neighborhood commercial districts. The project began in the spring of 2001, with development of a work plan, which identified the survey criteria and boundaries. A context statement was then prepared, giving an overview of commercial development patterns throughout the city. Following this, a reconnaissance survey was done, looking at every building in the identified commercial districts. This survey recorded more than 1000 buildings that met the basic criteria of age (built prior to 1962) and architectural integrity. Two hundred of these structures were identified for further research and inclusion in the final inventory. Development patterns and physical characteristics of each neighborhood and of these 200 buildings are summarized here. In addition to this report, the Neighborhood Commercial District inventory includes 200 Historic Property Inventory forms in an electronic database format that will be available to the general public as well as to other city departments.
  • Titles of Plats

    Titles of Plats

    % JUL \ J!.\!,.,,'! '«»„«' Si TITLES OF PLATS IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON A Corrected and Compared List of Titles to All Plats filed in King County, Washington, as they appear of record on the Plat Books of said County Compiled, compared and certified by N. H. MOORE PUBLISHED BY E. Y. JEFFERY 531 Burke Building - - Seattle & o eye... o IN examining instruments intending to con- * vey property, we frequently find the name or title of Additions inaccurately stated. The following carefully prepared list of titles to all plats as they actually appear on record, has proven of such practical value in our office that we decided to put it in book form, feeling assured it will be appreciated by every one interested in conveying platted property in King County. E. Y. JEFFERY, 531 Burke Building 24.ti65& Flats ,. .. •«a, ^ w i « M location Aabling's First Addition to the City riled Vol. Page of Seattle 24 Nov. 08 17 40 47th. S. W. & Genesee St. Aberfeldy Estate Addition to Seat- j tie "Washington 5 Apr. 90 5 45 Occidental & Henderson. A map showing a tract of land belonging to Robert Abernethy & John R. Kinnear Se­ attle. W. T 17 May 88 2 139 Tide Flats. Abington Addition to the City of Seattle 10 June 90 6 17 32nd Ave. S. & Juneau St. (Vacated) Abrahams First Addition to Auburn 13 Mar. 12 20 67 Evans St-First St. Abrams' Add. to South Seattle . 4 Jan. 04 11 30 13th. S. & Holden St. Plat of Day's Acre Gardens 26 Feb. 89 3 66 8th.-N.
  • As a Di‘Erent Route Through Downtown Buses Continuing INTERBAY Swedish S

    As a Di‘Erent Route Through Downtown Buses Continuing INTERBAY Swedish S

    N 152 St to Shoreline CC Snohomish County– to Aurora toAuroraVill toMtlk to Richmond NE 150 St toWoodinvilleviaBothell 373 5 SHORELINE 355 Village Beach Downtown Seattle toNSt Terr to Shoreline CC toUWBothell 308 512 402 405 410 412 347 348 77 330 309 toHorizonView 312 413 415 416 417 421 NE 145 St 373 308 NE 145 St ­toKenmoreP&R N 145 St 304 316 Transit in Seattle 422 425 435 510 511 65 308 toUWBothell 513 Roosevelt Wy N Frequencies shown are for daytime period. See Service Guide N 143 St 28 Snohomish County– 346 512 301 303 73 522 for a complete summary of frequencies and days of operation. 5 64 University District 5 E 304 308 For service between 1:30–4:30 am see Night Owl map. 512 810 821 855 860 E N 871 880 y 3 Av NW 3 Av Jackson Park CEDAR W Frequent Service N 135 St Golf Course OLYMPIC y Linden Av N Linden Av PARK t Bitter i Every 15 minutes or better, until 7 pm, Monday to Friday. C HILLS weekdays Lake e 372 Most lines oer frequent service later into the night and on NW 132 St Ingraham k a Ashworth Av N Av Ashworth N Meridian Av NE 1 Av NE 15 Av NE 30 Av L weekends. Service is less frequent during other times. (express) 373 77 N 130 St Roosevelt Wy NE 372 weekends 28 345 41 Link Light Rail rapid transit North- every 10 minutes BITTER LAKE acres 8 Av NW 8 Av Park 5 NW 125 St N 125 St Haller NE 125 St E RapidRide limited stop bus for a faster ride 345 Lake NE 125 St every 10–12 minutes 346 PINEHURST 8 Frequent Bus every 10–12 minutes BROADVIEW 99 347 348 continues as LAKE CITY 75 Frequent Bus every 15 minutes 41 345 NE 120 St Northwest
  • APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area

    APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area

    APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement This appendix lists and illustrates the parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area based on available geographic information systems (GIS) data. GIS data sources were as follows: • Snohomish County • King County • Pierce County • City of Everett • City of Mountlake Terrace • City of Lake Forest Park This information was not verified in the field and parks and recreation facility representatives were not contacted to determine ownership or the recreational uses associated with these resources. Over 1,300 parks and recreation facilities were listed in the available GIS database including a wide variety of open space areas, sports fields, trails, and water- oriented facilities. The park or recreation facility ID numbers in Table G-1 correspond to those ID numbers in Figure G-1 and Figure G-2. Table G-1. Parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area, by county Facility ID Facility ID number Facility name number Facility name Snohomish County 104 Unnamed park or recreation facility 3 Unnamed park or recreation facility 105 Unnamed park or recreation facility 5 Unnamed park or recreation facility 106 Unnamed park or recreation facility 6 Unnamed park or recreation facility 107 Unnamed park or recreation facility 7 Unnamed park or recreation facility 108 Unnamed park or recreation facility 9 Unnamed park or recreation facility 109 Unnamed park or recreation facility 19 Unnamed park or recreation facility 110 Unnamed
  • Urban Village Maps

    Urban Village Maps

    West Seattle Junction Residential Urban Village Existing Public Transit School Landmark Residential Lines Urban Village Grocery Store Park Future Light Rail Line Proposed Draft Urban Village Community P-Patch Frequent Transit Center T Node Expansion 37 21 57 773 21X 116X 37 118X C 55 119X 56X 50 128 55 21X C 50 55 50 21X 57 128 West Seattle Golf Course C 37 C 50 T 50 773 22 128 10 Minute Walk * Camp Long 116X 118X 21 119X 21X 10 Minute Walk * C Fairmount Park Miles 0 1/8 1/4 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Rainier Beach Residential Urban Village Existing Public Transit School Landmark Residential Lines Urban Village Grocery Store Park Sound Transit Light Rail Line Proposed Draft Urban Village Community P-Patch Frequent Transit Center T Node Expansion 7 Pritchard 9X Island 10 Minute Walk * 50 8 Rainier Beach Playeld East Duwamish Greenbelt 9X Beer Sheva Park 10 Minute Walk * T 8 9X 8 50 7 8 107 106 107 8 7 107 7 106 10 Minute Walk * 107 Hutchinson Playground Kubota Garden 106 Miles 0 1/8 1/4 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Othello Residential Urban Village Existing Public Transit School Landmark Residential Lines Urban Village Grocery Store Park Sound Transit Light Rail Line Proposed Draft Urban Village Community P-Patch Frequent Transit Center T Node Expansion S FINDLAY ST 37TH AVE
  • 3.0 HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE on FRINK PARK “Although I Have Been Familiar with Frink Park in a General Way, in Consequence of My S

    3.0 HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE on FRINK PARK “Although I Have Been Familiar with Frink Park in a General Way, in Consequence of My S

    3.0 HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE ON FRINK PARK “Although I have been familiar with Frink Park in a general way, in consequence of my study of the Park system, I visited the Park in the company of the Superintendent, and was much pleased with the romantic and secluded ravine and steep wooded hillsides, which give a decidedly marked and interesting character to this little park.” 1 - John C. Olmsted, 1906 “The desire to see the city of my adoption the most prosperous and beautiful in all things which make a city great has been my only incentive.” 2 - John. M. Frink, 1908 3.1 History and Overview of Frink and Leschi Parks & Olmsted Boulevard System Early history of the area near Frink Park indicates that Duwamish and other coastal Salish native people camped along the shore of Lake Washington in the vicinity of Leschi Park and traversed the hill to reach Elliott Bay for salmon fishing. Settlers arriving later also used this route to reach Lake Washington from Elliott Bay and for transporting goods such as coal, which arrived by barge from across Lake Washington. Later a warehouse was built on the shore for storing produce brought by farmers from around the lake on its way to market. Passenger and later car ferry service was provided from the Leschi dock.3 Platting of the land in the area began in 1883, including the land now known as Frink Park, which was platted, by Judge Thomas Burke and his wife, Carrie E. Burke. He reserved the steep slope area naming it “Washington Park.” In response to the growing demand for transportation to the lake especially in the summer, the Seattle Construction Company built the Second, Mill & Jackson St.