River Bend Park: A Closer Look
Will 12 parking spaces have a big effect on the neighborhood?
This conceptual site plan shows where parking spaces and a canoe and kayak launch will be added to the existing park in River Bend. The parks department wants to put in a 12-space lot.
Kent Parks Department
Photos (1)
Photos
Let's take a closer look at the canoe and kayak access park the Kent Parks and Recreation Department is planning for the River Bend neighborhood.
The parks department bought the 6-acre site adjacent to the River Bend Boulevard bridge over the Cuyahoga River in the 1990s. In recent years, several plans were proposed that included as many as 30 parking spaces, restrooms, a picnic shelter and a dock.
Today, those plans have been scaled back after hearing concerns from residents that the parks plan was too aggressive. Now, the parks department is pitching a 12-space parking lot with low lighting and no additional features other than a path down to the river with a slope for water access.
The parks department bought the land as part of long-term recreation planning, which calls for greater access to the river.
The parking lot would have low-level pedestal lighting to try and limit it from shining on adjacent properties. The parking itself would be constructed from porous "stonecrete" material to absorb rain water and prevent stormwater from running off into the river and other properties.
The parks department has $250,000 in grant funds to build the lot and water access ramp from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. But those funds can't be released until the plan is approved by the state, and the parks department is awaiting approval from Kent's local planning boards before taking it to the state level. So far, the Kent Board of Zoning Appeals gave the site the OK, but it still needs approval from the Kent Planning Commission, which will hear the case Tuesday night.
The plan seems simple enough, but the question is whether 12 parking spaces, lighting and a designated public access point to the river will affect adjacent property owners.
Jim and Diana Sumner believe the added parking will be a detriment to their property, which is directly across the river from the existing park. Among their concerns are a negative effect on their property value, noise and litter.
Supporters of the plan believe those concerns are unfounded. And they may very well be.
Really, there are two questions here; if public river access trump's a private property owner's rights, and whether the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
Based on state and local action so far, the answer seems to support the parks department's plans.
Would you use this park to access the Cuyahoga River for canoe and kayak use?
Tell us in the comments.
Laurel Myers Hurst
10:14 am on Monday, January 31, 2011
If the property has been owned by the parks department for nearly 20 years, the homeowners have had ample opportunity to sell or stay in order to protect their real estate investment. Now, the park should be developed according to the needs of the public. The public needs parking, trash cans, benches and a restroom at least. Sheltered tables would be a NORMAL expectation for any other canoe launch park in any other city. Make the park a destination!
Allan Orashan
2:13 pm on Monday, January 31, 2011
I will definitely use the river access and I believe it will be a benefit to the community. In my experience with the Portage Park District objections to adjacent park facilities melt away fairly quickly after they are completed and, in fact, nearby parks facilities are seen as a benefit to a neighborhood. The Kent Parks Department under John Idone has a good record of installing tasteful park improvements.
Allan Orashan
Kymberly Seabolt
12:21 pm on Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Agree :)
Kasha Legeza
3:31 pm on Monday, January 31, 2011
I didn't realize the parks department had owned the land for a long period of time. That changes my opinion on the issue!
Kymberly Seabolt
11:55 am on Tuesday, February 1, 2011
While I understand the adjacent neighbor concerns, when you live near a public park you have to expect the PUBLIC to go there. Denying access to ALL because SOME might misbehave is misguided. Using that theory one should not live in a college town at all!
It seems like the park is trying to minimize negative impact (low lights, for example). With a firm promise to keep the park neat and keep unruly behavior out (which should be a goal regardless of location), I think in a year the neighbors will look back on this as much ado about nothing.
Don Booth
8:13 pm on Friday, February 11, 2011
Developing this site so more people can use it seems like the right thing to do.