HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990 - Booker and Associates - Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park on Adrian Island - Master PlanMaster Plan
Deborah Cooper
Riverfront Park
... · ..
,• ' -.;
Prepared For:
Housing Authority, City of Jefferson and The
Deborah Cooper Foundation
Prepared By:
Booker Associates, Inc. -St. Louis, Missouri
Master Plan For :
DEBORAH COOPER
RIVERFRONT PARK
On Adrian Island •!• J e ffer s on City, Mis souri
August 1990
Prepared For:
Housing Authority ~ City of Jefferson ~ Deborah Cooper Foundation
Prepared B y:
Booker Associates, Inc. ~ St. Louis, Missouri
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
D eborah Cooper Foundation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ATTITUDINAL SURVEYS
Methodology
Survey Sample
Desired Facilities
Design Aspects
Development Questionnaire Sample
PROGRAM DEVEOPMENT
SITE ANALYSIS
Introduction
Access and Barriers
Edge Conditions
Vegetation
Slopes and Drainage
Utili tie s
General Visual Analysis
MASTER PLAN
Land Use Plan
Concept De s ign Pl ans
Preliminary Master Plan
Agency Coordination
Final Master Plan
PHASING PLAN
Introduction
Phase I · Phase IV
Cost Estimate Summary
APPENDIX A
Site Analysis Map
Land Use Plan
Concept Plan I
Concept Plan II
Concept Plan III
Prellminary Master Plan
Grading Plan
APPENDIX B
Corps of Engineers Correspondence
I-1 · I-2
AS-1 · AS-2
AS-3 · AS-6
AS-7
AS-8
AS-9 · AS-11
PD-1
SA-l
SA-l · SA-2
SA-3
SA-4
SA-4
SA-4
SA-4
MP-1
MP-1 -MP-3
MP-4
MP-4 · MP-5
MP-6 · MP-15
PP-1
PP-1 · PP-4
PP-5
Master Plan Table Of Contents
Page TC • 1
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Introduction
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
INTRODUCTION
The Housing Authority of Jefferson City. in
conjunction With the Deborah Cooper Foun-
dation and the City of Jefferson. have con-
tracted Booker Associates. Inc . to prepare a
master plan for the development of a river-
front park located on Adrian Island in Jef-
ferson City. Missouri. The park Will be
lmown as Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
on Adrian Island. This Master Plan is the
result of a series of efforts and interests held
by Jefferson City governments in the past to
develop Adrian Island in variou s forms.
References to the beautification of Jefferson
City's riverfront area date back to 1932 . but
a s of yet . few proposals have progressed
past the planning stage.
The·· Master Plan proposal addresses the
development of Adrian Island as a passive
park and suggests the optimum public use
and direction of development to obtain an
attractive and functional riverfront park.
The process by which the ~aster Plan was
produced is outlined as follows:
ORIENTATION AND DATA REVIEW
Booker Associates. Inc. met with the Client
to establish the goals and objectives of the
~aster Plan. Previously prepared back-
ground data associated with the project was
collected and reviewed.
ATTITUDINAL SURVEY
A survey questionnaire. which can be found
on pages AS9. ASlO. and ASll. was formu-
lated and administered to randomly selected
residents of Jefferson City and visitors to
the Capitol Comple.-x . The results were then
tabulated. analyzed and used in the formu-
lation of the development program.
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundatio11
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
A long-term development program for the
riverfront park has been established which
was based on previous studies. site condi-
tions. and the attitudinal and facility sur-
vey. This program statement directed the
formulation of a Concept. Preliminary. and
Final Master Plan.
SITE ANALYSIS
An in-depth study. documentation and
analysis of the project area was conduc ted.
CONCEPT MASTER PLAN
A series of Concept Master Plans were p re -
pared to evaluate development opportuni-
ties at the site: These plan·s -were based on
background data collected. the attitudinal
survey. site analysis. and development
program.
AGENCY COORDINATION
As part of the project scope of services.
Booker was ch a rged with coo rdinating the
development concepts for Adrian Island with
a number of agencies who may be affected
by the project. Agencies which were con-
sulted during the design process included
Union Electric. Union Pacific Railroad. the
Kansas City Corps of Engineers. and FEMA.
In addition. the Preliminary Master Plan
was presented to the State of Ylissouri
Division of Design and Construction and
Division of Parks. Recreation and Historic
Preservation. A summary of this coordina-
tion effort can be found on page MP-5.
Master Plan Introduction
Page I -1
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN
A Preliminary Master Plan was developed
based upon the refinement of the Con-
cept Master Plans and served as the basis
for the Final Master Plan. A public meeting
was held in Jefferson City on April 25.
1990, to present the Preliminary Master
Plan. Attendees included members of
various Jefferson City agencies. civic or-
ganizations. and the press. Reaction to
the presentation was generally positive
and direction was subsequently given to
fmalize the Master Plan.
BACKWATER STUDY
At the r equest of Booker Associates. Inc.
and based on the proposed improvements
shown on the Preliminary Master Plan.
the Kansas City District. Corps of Eng i-
neers. conducted a backwater study for
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park. A major
finding of the study indicated that the
proposed Island development would not
alter backwater profiles for the :\11ssouri
River . This finding is a positive •first
step· toward the District's acceptance of
the proposed plan.
One recommendation of the backwater
study, which affected the Preliminary
:\1aster Plan. was to eliminate the Wears
Creek entrance enclosure as it enters the
!\1issouri River. This recommendation
has been accepted and incorporated into
the Final Master Plan .
Master Plan
Page I -2
FINAL MASTER PLAN
The Final Master Plan Is a synthesis of all the
above items that has evolved through the
planning process. The Final Master Plan
should be considered as a working tool to be
used as the general guideline for all future
development at Deborah Cooper Riverfront
Park on Adrian Island.
PHASING PLAN
A Phasing Plan has been established fo r the
develo pment of Deborah Cooper Riverfront
Park. The Phasing Plan consists of fo ur (4)
improvement projects which are prioritized in
sequence for the planned evolution of the
riverfront park.
r
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Attitudinal Surveys
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
METHODOLOGY
A development questionnaire (sample found
at the end of this chapter) was designed and
implemented to aid in assessing the pres-
ent citizen awareness of the selected deve l-
opment site, the needs of the Jefferso n City
Park Department. and the citizens' percep-
tion of development desires on Adrian Is-
land. Presented below is a description of
each question and its rationale.
QUESTION 1:
"Are you familiar with the subject area?"
In o rder to validate funher ques-
tioning d uring the survey. a realization of
specific site location is desired . Many citizens
and especially those s urveyed near the
Capitol Complex will probably be more
knowledgeable than others of the site. Fa-
miliarization and site description may be
used during this survey question.
QUESTION 2:
"Have you lived or visited cities which util-
ize a riverfront development to promote r ec·
rea.tional/ cultural activities?"
Relating the Deborah Cooper River-
front Park to successful developments
throughout the United States will both
promote the idea of a riverfront park and
reflect the types of activities that the person
surveyed wo uld use on Adrian Island. This
will become beneficial when addressing other
questions in the survey. It is important to
note that design is a process of envisioning
and weighing possibilities.
QUESTION 3:
"Does the Missouri River provide a potential
for public use? Should public use focus on
the River?"
Every statement about environmental per-
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
formance makes a host of assumptions about
human behavior. and how much human
environmental adaptation will be to lerated.
Are those persons surveyed interested in
the river environment and vistas related to
its site? Should their activities be associ-
ated with the demands of their visiting the
river locale?
QUESTION 4:
"Regarding the previous question. is it
important to include boating access from
Adrian Island or should an access point be
developed at some ot her location on c.he
ri ve r ?"
Involving the eventual users of the site in
the programrn.!ng will produce identifiable
uses . Is the site perceived as a means of
access to the river o r as sUictly a park
existing near the river.
QUESTION 5:
"Have you visited Lohman's Landing?" The
Capitol Complex? How could development
of Adrian Island benefit and/ or compliment
these areas?"
The preferences of particular users is ex-
plored in this question to test the potential
market or attraction of this area. Is the
Capitol area seen as an attraction in itsell?
If so. would the Adrian Island development
benefit as an extension of the Capitol Com-
pie."< or of Lohman's Landing.
QUESTION 6:
How would you rate the programs provided
by the City Park Department?
QUESTION 7:
How would you rate the facilities provided
by the City Park Department?
Master Plan Attitudinal Surve s
Page AS -1
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
The new development of Adrian Island will
definitely be influenced by present programs
and facilities of the City Park Department.
How existing programs and facilities are
perceived by users. and what steps should
be taken to sustain these feelings or im-
prove upon them can be important in decid-
ing upon future recreational opportunities.
QUESTION 8:
"In your opinion. what are the fwe (5) great-
est needs for park and recreation facilities
in the Jefferson City arear
Choices made within a domain should benefit
the improvement of the entire domain. What
are the perceived needs of the City Park
Department and what may be used on Adrian
Island to satiate these needs are (as in
Questions 7 and 8) important to planning
for future public use areas ..
QUESTION 9:
"Considering your answer to the previous
question. is development of Adrian Island a
priority for meeting the above mentioned
recreation needsr
This question helps to direct the emphasis
of park and recreation needs to the Adrian
Island development which is addressed in
later questions.
QUESTION 10:
"Do you perceive development of Adrian Island
equally benefitting State employees vs. other
City residents?"
This again relates to specific users
and the design emphasis when the specific
user is identified. Will the site be designed
for work-day use only. or will weekend and
evening programs benefit a larger j:'.)rtion of
the population.
Master Plan
Page AS -2
QUESTION 11:
"Would you use Adrian Island if there was
suitable pedestrian access to the site?"
Packaging the development for most prob-
able use is important to good design. Im-
provements for the site must include good
ingress and egress. which will be quickly
aclmowledged by the probable user.
QUESTION 12:
"In your opinion. what types of facilities
r.vould be compatible o n Adrian Island?"
This will assist the designer to choose facili-
ties to be desired by the potential users o f
Adrian Island. The use of users· expres-
sions will most frequently provide for the
design's success.
QUESTION 13:
"Would you support the use of public fW1d.s
for development of Adrian Island?"
Where profit is not the motive . such as in
public and institutional projects. the source
of funds will often influence the design.
There will be allowable cost dictated by the
public agency. and needed analysis of cost
and benefits over time.
Answers to this question will provide the
City insight as to which funding mecha-
nisms to initially pursue.
SURVEY SAMPLE
Perceptions. attitudes. and behavior pat-
terns are forms of nonvisible data that is
critical when sampling for public opinion.
In selecting a representative sample of citi-
zens to implement the "potential user sur-
v ey~. the concern of any survey is that the
number and types of people in the sample
be representative of the whole population to
enable the researcher to make sound gen-
eralization about that population.
Booker Associates Inc. used three segmented
groups in selecting a sample population.
The first group. and largest. was selected
from telephone listings by telephone e.x-
change location. Th1s group was selected
from the City center and the suburban fringe
area e.xchanges. The second group. and
smallest. was chosen from the populatio n
frequenting the Capital Shopping Mall: a
suspected suburban oiiented population
model. The third group was selected from
people traversing the Capitol Comple.x and
the Truman Center near the riverfront site.
This particular gro up would most probably
be composed of potential users (because of
proximity of site) most familiar with the
Adrian Island site.
SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFll..E
Approxim ate Age:
Sex:
Marital Status:
Children:
Home:
SURVEY RESULTS
32
Female
Married
Two
Jefferson City, MO
The following analysis represents. for each
survey question. a summation of the an-
swers provided by the public.
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
D ebo rah Cooper Foundation
QUESTION 1:
Are you familiar with the subject area? and.
How do you perceive its current use and/ or
public use potential?
Both the telephone-surveyed respondents.
who most probably are local residents. and
those interviewed ln person at the Capitol
Comple.x who probably includes non-local
visitors. refle cted a high level of site recog-.
nition. Of the total surveyed. 7 3% were
familiar with either Adrian Island o r the
land adjacent to the Capitol and the Mis-
sou ri River. Its current use was perceived
as an eyesore. vacant land and useless river
p roperty. Of the majority that s u pponed
public use. some form of public park devel-
opment was favored.
QUESTION 2:
Have you lived in or visited cities which
utilize a riverfront development to promore
recreational/ cultural activities? and. Whcu
do you remember the most about that riL·er-
jront development?
:\1ost respondents (68 percent) had either
lived ln or visited other cities which had
river-related recreational and cultural ac-
tivi ties. Cities mentioned by the respon-
dents were: St. Louis. Missoun: Clncinnati.
Ohio: Memphis. Tennessee: Boston. Massa-
chusetts: New Orleans. Louisiana: San
Antonio Te.xas: Norfolk. Virginia: Natchez.
:\1ississippi: Kansas City. Missoun: Quincy.
nlinois: St. Charles. Missouri: and Wash-
ington. Missouri. The r espondents were im-
pressed by the fo ll owing aspects of these
sites or environs:
·:• Steamboats & e.xcursion boats
·:. Walkways. trails
·:• Restaurants. shops and
nightclubs
·:-Scenery and landscaping
•:• Vista
·:· Activity on the river
Attitudinal Surve s
Page AS -3
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
QUESTION 3:
Does the Missouri River provide a potential
for public use? Should public use focus on
the river?
The potential o f the Missouri River for public
use was regarded by 67 percent of the
r espondents as favorable. However. the
overall focus of that use toward the .\ltis-
sourt River was somewhat less (50 percent).
This reflects the desire for recreation to be
land oriented. rather than the attentio n given
to boating, fishing and other water depend-
ent recreation at this particular site.
QUESTION 4:
Regarding the previous question (the public
use of the Missouri River). is it important to
include booting access f r om Adrian Island o r
should an access point be developed at some
other location on the river?
A majority (60 percent) of the respondents
felt that boating access was either unimpor-
tant at this location or should be provided
at another location along the .\ltiss ouri River.
The disruption. noise . and parking prob-
lems inherent with boating access were
particularly peninent concerns o f respon-
dents.
QUESTION 5:
Have you visited Lohman's Landing? The
Capitol Complex? How could development of
Adrian I sland benefit and/ or complement
these areas?
Lohman's Landing, an historic district on
the Missouri River front. was visited by a
large portion of the respondents (68 per-
cent). The Capitol Comple.'C. consisting of
the Capitol building and the area within its
circumferential drive. has been visited by
91 percent of the respondents . This site
Master Plan
Page AS -4
represents the prime focus of activity or
destination within the City of Jefferson.
People involved in the survey responded to
what specific benefit the development of
Adrian Island would be to this focal point.
Presented below are the more popular
thoughts regarding this question.
·:. Additional benefit to tourism
·:0 Connect Missouri River and
Capitol
·:0 Community focal point
·:· Enhance visual assets
·:. Enhance historic area
·:• Provide for picnicking/recrea-
tion while visiting the Capitol
Complex
QUESTION 6:
How would you rate the programs provided
b y the City Park Departmenc?
Jefferson City's Park Department provides a
variety of e."d.ension activities for a city of its
size. Olympic size swimming pools. fitness
jogging trails. a golf course. lighted tennis
courts. an open air amphitheater a fishing
lake. tee skating rink. and various ballfields
and sports facilities all provide residents
with ample recreation p r ograms. :Vl ost
respondents were p leased with the programs
provided by the City Park Department with
44 percent of respondents rating the pro-
grams good : and 17 percent rating the
programs e.'Ccellent.
QUESTION 7:
How would you rate the facilities provided
by the City Park Department?
Although some respondents mentioned the
aging of the facilities and apparent vandal-
ism to certain structures. the overall re-
sponse was favorable. The facilities were
rated good by 45 percent o f respondents
and e.'Ccellent by 14 percent.
QUESTION 8:
In your op inion. what are the five (5) great-
est needs for park and recreation facili ties in
the Jefferson City area?
There were many different ideas e.xpressed
as to the greatest needs in facilities. Those
surveyed expressed needs in facilities. Those
surveyed expressed needs from miniature
golf courses to dance programs and the
possibility of a small zoological garden. The
ten most prevalent responses are listed ln
the following column in descending order of
popularity.
·:• Walking, biking & running
trails
·:0 Maintenance of park facilities
•:0 Additional swimming pool
·:• Greater security against van-
dalism
•:• A riverlront park
·:• Better children's facilities
·:• Picnic areas improved
·:. Additional playgrounds
·!• Passive park areas
•:0 :\~lore ballfields
QUESTION 9:
Considering your answer to the previous
question (on park facility needs). is develop-
ment of Adrian. fsland a priority for meeting
the above mentioned recreation needs?
With the devel opment of recreation facilities
on Adrian Island. about half of the respon-
dents (48 percent) fe lt that this program
would certainly satisfy many of the park
facility needs. and therefore should be a
priority.
QUESTION 1 0 :
Do you perceive development of Adrian fs·
land equally benefitting state employees vs.
other City residents?
Ho u sing A ut h ority,
Ci ty of Jefferso n an d
D ebo rah Cooper Foundation
A great majority of those surveyed (70 per-
cent) were opinionated that State employ-
ees. other City resid ents. and tourists would
equally benefit from the Adrian Island devel-
opment. State employees would be able t o
utilize the park durtng the work week. and
other citizens and tourists throughout the
week and on weekends.
QUEST ION 11 :
Would you use Adrian fsland if ther e LL'as
suitabLe pedestrian access to the site?
The Adrian Island site p resents itself as an
advantageous development for the City's
park system. Concern was e.xpressed about
particular access to the island site. :\-lost
respondents (81 percent) would use o r visit
Adrian Island if developed and provided with
suitable pedestrian access. Access was
desired across the Missouri Pacific Railyards
from the Capitol Comple.-c o r fr om a needed
parking facility near the site .
QUEST ION 12:
fn your opinion. what types of facilities u.:ould
be compatible o n Adrian fsland? Please rate
each of the following as either a high or low
priority (H o r IJ.
In general. most facilities that were give n a
high priority we re those that were compat-
ible with a passive park theme for the Adrian
Island development. The addition of a
Riverboat Excursion Access was logical fo r
facilitating such an attraction. but s h o uld
still leave the s ite with a passive focus. The
responses were as fo llows:
•!• Passive Park (with Nature Trail
and Picnicking)
Eight-seven (87) percent of respondents
gave this focus a high priority which corre-
s ponds to the park needs g iven ln Survey
Question 8.
Attitudinal Surve s
P age AS -5
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Outdoor Theatre
Fifty-three (53) percent of respondents gave
this particular facility a low priority and
therefore wasn't perceived as necessary on
Adrian Island. The City >f Jefferson has an
open air amphitheater located in Ellis Por-
ter Park on Riverside Drive.
·> Orban Plaza (with Paved Walk
ways and Fountains)
Fifty-seven (57) percent of respondents
gave this facility idea a low priority. Per-
ceived as being removed from the Urban
Center of Jefferson City. Adrian Island was
given pastoral priorities.
·:0 Boat Access
As in Survey Question 4. boating access
was not seen as important to the Adrian
Island site and its perceived passive u se.
53 percent gave this facility a low priority.
•:0 Fishing Access
Being seen as a natural activity for the
passive design of Adrian Island develop-
ment. 58 percent gave fishing access a high
priority.
•) Wildlife Reserve
Sixty-two (62) percent of respondents felt
that this activity would be environmental
beneficial.
·:.· · Riverboat Excursion Access
This was a popular choice for many re-
spondents with sixty-seven (67) percent
giving it a priority.
Master Plan
Page AS -6
·=-Playing Fields (Softball, Soc-
cer)
Adrian Island was not a high priority for
playing fields. sixty-seven (67) percent low
priority was given for these facilities.
The figure on the following page provides a
graphic portrayal of the results to Question
12.
QUESTION 13:
Would you support the use ojpublicfundsfor
development of Adrian Island?
When projects are perceived as beneficial to
the entire community. interest will dictate
action. This action is g enerally more re-
sponsive if financially controlled by the
community's public agency with the use of
public funds. A great majority (70 percent)
of respondents supported this use of public
funding for the development of Adrian Is-
land.
p 100 :;
R
c
:; 80 ~
7
:i 60 I
G
H
? 40
R
l
0
R 20
I
T
y
0
p
E
R
c 20
::
~
7 40
:.
0
w 60
?
R
I 80 0
R
I
T 100 y
SOURCE:
Housing Authority,
City of Jefterso1l a1rd
Deborah Cooper Foundatio1l
DESIRED ADRIAN ISLAND FACILITIES AS SURVEYED
-FISHING ACCESS
-PASSIVE PARK -WILDLIFE RESOURCE
I
-BOAT ACCESS
-URBAN PLAZA
-OUTDOOR THEATRE
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Citizen Survey. Question # 12 .
Booker Associates. Inc .. January 1990.
-RIVERBOAT
I EXCURSION
ACCESS
PLAYING FIELDS -
Attitudinal Surveys
Page AS-7
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
DESIGN ASPECTS DERIVED FROM
THE ATTITUDINAL SURVEY
Again. emphasis on a particular design is a
p r ocess of envisioning and weighing possi-
bilities. Designers construct a model of
what is known about the site and the p r o-
gram that is desired by the community.
Design will also address most uses and
economical themes coveted and dictated by
the site's e nvirorunent. What design can
best be used by the community in hosting
visitors from other communities. ~the City's
living room or parlo r~ is a n advantageous
aspect for marketing the City's attributes.
What do the citizen users seek regarding
activities to meet their recreation needs and
those of their families. Four (4) design
requirements were segregated from the
questionnaire pertaining to the Deborah
Cooper Riverfront Park o n Adrian Island .
These constitu te ll an open meadowland
activities a r ea. 2) a Missouri Rive r fishing/
obse rvation pier. 3) a wetlands habitat reserve
and nature area. and 4) an excursion boat
access facility.
OPEN MEADOWLANDS ACTIVITY AREA
Creating a highly used activity open space
on Adrian Island for multi-purpose use is
both desirable and functional. ~odels of
this popular site development Is seen on
many riverfront park lands. It should be
situ ated to best serve community gather-
ings such as firework aerial displays. ethnic
festivals. jamborees. military and historic
re-enactments. fairs. and other large civic
functions . F ootpaths and trails would be
p laced within and circumferential to this
site feature.
Master Plan
Page AS -8
1'41SSOURI RIVER FISHING AND OBSER-
VATION PIER
In prOXimity to the most probable user
derivation. the Capitol Complex, the pier
wo uld serve as the focus for the site's most
passive functions. Fishing facilities. com-
munity and environmental Information
structures. picnic facilities. partially cov-
ered bench/rest/lunch areas and a ~is
souri River observation deck are e..'<amples
of particular fu nctional assets.
WETLANDS HABITAT RESERVE AND NA-
TURE AREA
The Adrian Island envirorunent is presentlv
adapted from a :vtissouri River Wetland;.
These wetlands are n ow seen as a national
envirorunental resource . The wetland habitat
harbors rare plants and animals and pro-
vides b r eeding and feeding sites for water-
fowl and gameflsh. This particular natural
feature would not only provide landscape
screens fr om lhe close urban p r oximity of
the site. but provide an instrument in
community envirorunental education.
EXCURSION BOAT ACCESS FACILITY
A substantial amount of interest in a Mis-
souri River e..'<cursion boat was identified by
lhe survey. Being a predominant and his-
toric city upon lhe Missouri River. this would
be a recr eational and tourism asset. Lo-
cated at an opposing ape..'< from the fishing
pie r facility. the access should include a
walkway to a dock facility fr om a separate
and additional parking facility. The parking
facility would provide better access if lo-
cated adjacent to the Adrian Island s ite.
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
!Xborak Coopu R irJufn'"t Park
flousillg Awthority,
City Of T•fferso" Atui
D<borak Coop<r Fo~~ttdati o"
DEBORAH COOPER RI VERFRONT PARK
DEVELO P.\.fDIT QIIEST10r-rNAJR£
Date :
Approximate Age:
Sex: ::J ~ ::J F
Home (Cty and State):
~anul Status: ::J S ::J \<! ->1 of C~udren -----
This swvey reLltes to development of the Debor.lil Cooper Riverfront P;,rk on Adnan lsLlnd . Currently,
the area ts 33 ac-es of undeveloped land adj.lcent :o the :'>!issoun River. just below the C..puol. It :s
phystetlly sep.1rated from the Gty by the Missoun P•afic R.ulro.ad . The Cty of Jefferson ts mterested
m developtng the are• for ;rublic use and h•s rOUUied the serv~ces of Booker Assoaatcs. inc. of SL Lows
to develop a moster plan for the puk ba5<'<1 m p.1rt on the public's percepuon of the area. Yo u an assiS t
us with these efforts by answenng a few quesnons.
I. Are you far:ruliar wtth the subject area? ::J Y ::J ~ if yes, how do you percrtve 1b current use and /
o r public use potential?
2. Have you li ved in o r VISited cues wruc.'-1 uulize a nveriront development to promote reaeauon al /
culhlr.ll activities? ::J Y ::J ~ . Wha t do you r emember the mos t about that nverfront d evelopment?
3. Does the Missoun Ri ver proVIde • potenti.t.l for public use? 0 Y ::J N . Should publi c use focus on
the nver? 0 Y 0 N . Other Comments:
4. Regarding the preVJ ous quesuon. 15 11 :mportant to mdude bo.tting access fro m Adn.ln lsLlnd or
should an access pomt be d eveloped at some other locauon o n the n ver ?
BOOKER ASSOCIATES, INC.
P•ge I
Sample Questionnaire
Attitudinal Surve s
Page AS -9
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Dcboralt Cooper Ri»<rfro"t Parle
llOII$i"g Awtlto n'ty,
City Of J<ff<rso" A"d
Deborah Cooper Fo ""dJJtio"
5. Have you vistted Lohmans Ltnding? :J Y :J :-1 . The Clp1tol Complex? 0 Y 0 :--1 • How could
development of Adnan Island benefit and/ o r complement th~e areas?
6. How would you rate the prog rawu proVIded by the Cty Pa.rk Department ?
:J Excellent :J Good :J Fait :J Poor
7 How would you rate !.'le f aolilltJ proVIded by the C.tv Pa.rk Department 1
:J Excellent :J G.xx:l :J Fait :J Poor
8. ln your optruon. what Jre t.'le :ive \.5) greatest nC<'as tor parK and :ecreauon facltucs tn the jcifcrson
Cty a.rea?
9 Cons1dert:'lg your arswer to the preVIous qucstton. .s development of Adrun Island a pnonty fo r
mcenng the above menuoned l"C''''!1UOn needs? :J Y :J :-.; Other Comments:
10. Do you percave development of Ac!r.an Ist..nd ~..Uy benenttlng st.lte employe-es vs. o th"r aty
res~cents7 :J Y :J :-.: Why'
11. Would you use :\aru.n island u there wos swuble pedestn.on .ccrss to the SJte? ::l Y :J :'li . Other
Comme nts:
BOOKER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 2
Sample Questionnaire
Master Plan
Page AS -10
!XbortJit Coo~r RirJtrfro"t P11.rk
Housittg Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
Ho1LSi11g A11tltority, .:-
City Of Jefftrso" APIA
DtbortJit Coo~r Fo~md11.ti0'11
12. In your opinion. what types of facilities would be compatible on Adrian Island? Please rate each of
the following as either a high or low pnonty (H o r Ll.
H L
0 0 Passive Parle (with ~ature Trail and Piouclang)
0 0 Outdoor Theatre
0 0 Urban Plaza (with Paved Wall<ways and Fou.nt.ltnS)
0 Cl Boat Access
0 0 Ftshing Access
:::J Cl Wildlife Reserve
:::J :::J Riverboat Excurs1on Access
::l ::l Playing Ftelds (Soft ball Soccer)
0 ::l O ther ______________ _
13. Would you support the use of ?Ublic funds fo r development of Adnan Island? ::l Y ::l ~ .
Comments:
14 . Other Comments:
w
I
I
Sample Questionnaire
Utwi
I
I I /==
M\SSOUln ~\'JtR
Location Map
BOOKER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 3
. )<
Attitudinal Surve s
Page AS -11
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Program Development
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The first step in creating a long-term devel-
opment program for the Deborah Cooper
Riverfront Park on Adrian Island is to iden-
tify the various elements which will be
included within the park Master Plan. This
list was derived by analyzing the results of
the attitudinal and facility survey. input
from client representatives. site analysis
compatibility. and previous studies made
on the development of Adrian Island. Based
on the::;e factors. three general types of activity
spaces were identified for refinement into a
preliminary Master Plan for Deborah Coo-
per Riverfront Park. These activity s p a ces
include: passive park, activity area, and
riverfront excursion access.
The three overall activity spaces include
various amenities which make up each ele-
ment. Size or quantity requirements have
been established for each amenity by pro-
jected use and not by cost. The following
list outlines the program elements w ithin
each of the three activity areas.
Passive Park
·:· Nature Trails
•!• Pedestrtan Seatirig
·:· Pedestrian Lighting
•!• Picnic Areas
·:· Parking
•!• Open Green Sp a ce
·:· Fishing Access
·:· River Edge Walk
·=· Viewing Platform
·:· Arboretum
·:· Maintenance Vehicle Ac cess
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundatiotz
Activity .Area
•:• Fountain Focal Element
·:• Pedestrian Access (Overhead)
•:• Grass Amphitheater
•:0 Parking
·:• Pedestrian Li ghting
·:0 Attractive Landscapes
·:. Pedestrian Seating
·:• Various Attractive Pavements
·:• Maintenance Vehicle Acce s s
·:· Capitol Complex Acc ess
Riverfront Excursion Access
·!·
Moortng Location /Do c k
Concession /Restaurant
Activity Area Acc e ss
P edestrian Seating Ar eas
Pedestrian Li ghting
Master Plan Pro am Develo ment
Page PD -1
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Site Analysis
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
INTRODUCTION
Numerous visits wer e m ade to the project
s tudy area at various times of the year to
document seasonal c hanges. pedestrian
movements. a nd observe Capitol visito rs
dming times when State Legislators we r e
both in and out of session. The analysis
evalu ated many physical fea tures as they
relate to the project site and its immediate
surroundings. The elements of analysis
include the following:
Access and Barriers
Edge Conditions
Vegetation
Structures
Slopes And Drainage
Utilities
General Visual Analysis
It is these physical elements which create
the project site co n straints and opportuni·
ties for development. To record the e..'Cisting
con ditions for future study. a photographic
inventory was made of the p roject site.
samples of which are included within this
analysis section.
A composite site analysis graphic was also
developed and is included within this sec-
tio n. This graphic summertzes. in a broad
sense. the observations associated with most
of the elements listed above.
ACCESS AND B~RS
There are currently three forms of access to
t he island: vehicular. pedestrian. and by
boat. This analysis will include both exist·
ing and potential access points .
Currently, the only e..xisting vehicular ac·
cess point to the study area is vi a an exten-
sion of Harrison Street. This is a public
roa dway which c r osses the Union Pacific
Housing Authority,
City of Jeffersmt and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
Railroad tracks. The road is a narrow. oil
and chip surface with a relative ly unkempt
appearance. This access is primarily used
by the Corps of Engineers and fisherman to
access the public boat ramp west of Adrian
Is land. The primary constraint for access t o
Adrian Island is the Union Pacific Railroad.
This has b een identified as a problem in
past studies directed at developing the site.
Vehicular Access
There are numerous point s of potential
vehicular access to the island s h ould ve -
hicu lar access be deemed desirable . The
e..xisting north-south city str eets a r ound the
Capitol Comple..x dead end at the railroad
right-of-way. Possible at grade street cross-
ings to Adrian Island include Walnut Street.
Jefferson Street. Jackson Street. as well as
Harrison Street.
Areas which have s u itable gr ade seperation
to facilitate a railroad overpass crossint;
include Madison Street. as well as several
points north of the Capitol Building.
Union Pacific Railroad At Lohman's Landing
·Master Plan Site Anal sis
Page SA • 1
D eborah Co o p e r Riv er[ro11t P a rk
There current parking shortage within
downtown J efferson Cit}' and around the
Capitol Com p lex should be noted. Any
imp r ove men t s to Adrian Is land will increase
vehicular m ovem ent and parking require-
m en ts in the Capito l Comple.x area.
VteW From Capi t o l Avenue To Lohman's Landing
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access points could generally be
placed at any point along the length of the
island. Pedestrian access to the island will
probably be directed overhead for safety
reasons as Union Pacific Railroad generally
stores idle tralns for extended periods of
lime along the Adrian Island corridor. The
most logical and cost effective points of
access are the Capitol Btlllding area. :\ll adi-
son Street. a n d near Jackson Street. These
points c urrently abut the r ailroad right-of-
way about 30' above the level of the tracks.
providing a natural point of overhead cross-
ing. The Lo hman's landing area is also a
good candid ate fo r an overhead crossing
due to the openness of the area. available
parking, and historical s ignifican ce to the
railroad a n d river.
Master Plan
Pa ge SA -2
Marine Access
The entire island is accessible by boat.
however the rive r depth varies in numerous
places. The concept of marine access is a
secondary issue and if implemented as a
program item . location of marine facilities
should be .influenced by other design fac-
tors such as compatibility. circulation rou tes.
and aesthetic pr eferences.
Barriers
One obstacle to the development of Adrian
Is land is the Cnion Pacific Railroad li n e.
The railroad is a visu a l barrier. as well as
a physical bamer. There are approx.unately
seven (7) sets of rails adjoining Adrian Island.
creating significant prob lems with at-grade
pedestrian and vehicular access and ove r-
all visual quality of the site.
Capitol From N orth Bank Of M'LSSO uri River
Flooding is also a substantial development
co nstrain t for the island. Associated with
the p r oblems of flooding are the existing
soil conditions of the island. The island is
a typical accr eted land mass thus it can be
assu med that the soils are a corr.l:lination of
alluvial clays. sands, and silts. This ulti-
mately translates to p r obable increased costs
for con struction of structures and pave-
ments on the island.
..
EDGE CONDITIONS
Existing edge conditions of the iSland prop-
erty consiSt of typical midwest Missouri
River bank along the northern edge. Except
for the rock dikes which angle downstream
into the river from the south bank. there
have been no stabilization measures taken
to protect Adrian Island from the forces of
the river.
On the south edge of the site. durtng normal
river pool elevations. a slough or swale runs
parallel to the river which creates the iS-
land. Directly south of the slough are the
Mouth Of Wears Creek
River Edge At Adrian Island
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
railroad tracks which are usually occupied
by railroad cars on at least one set of tracks.
South of the railroad tracks lies downtown
Jefferson City. the State Capitol Complex.
and State Penitentiary. North of the Island
are river sand dredging oper ations. an earth
berm dike and agricultural fields beyond.
Capitol Building From Water Street
Sand Dredging Operations North Of Island
Site Anal sis
Page SA -3
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
VEGETATION
Existing vegetation on the island is primar-
ily riparian trees and undergrowth. Al-
though the plant material is relatively
unattractive, it is useful as a soil stabilizer.
Much of the Capitol Complex area has at-
tractive and very formalized landscape plant-
ings._ Most of the state-owned properties are
i.rrigated and receive a high level of land-
scape maintenance attention. Grounds
maintenance is currently performed by the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
The City of Jefferson is also giving more
attention to landscape planting and main-
tenance programs in and around the State
Capitol area. Most n otably is the creation
of a boulevard along West Main Street. west
of the Capitol Building.
SLOPES AND DRAINAGE
Adrian Island is a typical built-up Missouri
River island with little ground relief except
at the edges which are more visible at low
water periods. The island was formed through
a build up of silt and has very poor drainage.
The adjoining land area. however. has a
significant amount of varying topography.
These are the rolling hills and river bluffs of
downtown Jefferson City which contain
slopes of up to 60%, as well as vertical rock
cut cliffs at many points along the railroad
right-of-way. Drainage for the Jefferson
City area is generally towards the river or
Wears Creek. Drainage is both street drain-
age and underground storm sewer.
UTILITIES
The only utility north of the railroad line is
the high voltage electric line which runs
parallel with the railroad right-of-way. Sewer.
Master Plan
Page SA-4
gas. and water lines are all accessible at
numerous points adjacent to the southern
railroad edge. However. boring under the
railroad would be required to install utility
connections .
GENERAL VISUAL ANALYSIS
The Adrian Island area is located directly
below and adjacent to the State Capital of
Missouri. the Governor's mansion. down-
town Jefferson City and the historic Lo-
hman's Landing site. These attractive
amenities promote good visual images around
the project site. However. the industrial
nature of t he Union Pacific Railroad o pera-
tions. which separate the island fr om the
above mentioned amenities. sharply reduce
the visual potential of the island. The is-
land's river edge conditions present a major
obstacle in visually improving the site. The
sand dredging operations on the north edge
of the river are also a Visual liability. The
following are photographs of elements and
views from around the project site.
Capitol Building From North Bank Of River
Highway 54 Bridge Ouer Missouri River
Historic Lohman Building
Gouernor's Mansion
Housing Autlzority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
Plaza At Capitol Building
West Main Street Improvements
Wears Creek From West Main Street
Site Analysis
Page SA -5
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Master Plan
De b o ra h Cooper R iverfro nt Park
LAND USE PLAN
A land use plan was developed for the Debo-
rah Cooper Riverfront Park. Tilis p lan organ-
izes the various program elements into a
conceptu al diagram whic h suits e..'d.sting and
anticipated proposed conditions.
The planning criteria as listed below was
used in establishing this plan:
AREAS T O BE PRESERVED
The e.'dsting river dikes must be preserved
for navigational purposes. Obviously. the
character of the State Capitol Comple."<: a nd
the historic Lohman's Landing should be left
intact. Access points into these areas s hould
complement the e.'d.sting conditions.
AREAS TO BE CONSERVED
Conservation areas were established to pre-
serve the e.'d.sting natural vegetation on the
island. Much of the main section of the is-
land is proposed to be left as an e.'dsUng
natural area. Recreation elements such as
nature trails and pedestrian paths can be
sensitively ·nt into~ this conservation area
and minimize the impact on the e.'d.sting
vegetation.
AREAS TO BE DEVELOPED
This portion of land use al location Is based
on the program elements and the association
of these elements with the context of the
Cap itol Comple.x. The makeup of the island
is such that there are few limitations to
reshaping or construction other than the
alignment at the river edge. e.'d.sting soils
a nd adjacent existing conditions.
A land u se plan based on the above criteria
can be found in Appendix A.
Ho using Authority,
City of Jefte rs01 r and
Debo r ah Cooper Foundation
CONCEPT DESIGN PLANS
Three ·bub ble diagram~ concept plans have
been developed as a b asis for design. The
three con cept designs generally build upon
criteria established by the site analysis. de-
velopment program and land use plan. The
three concept designs have subtle di1Ter-
ences which distinguish each design. The
graphic format of a bubble diagram concept
plan is intended to convey the design thought
process and evolution of the preliminary
design. As previously stated. the inclusion of
these three concept designs into this docu-
ment also serve as a basis for comparison of
design elements and amenities to the even-
tual master plan.
CONCEPT DESIGN I
The first concept design has three distinctly
di1Terent areas of functional land u se. They
are:
·:• A hardscape urban plaza pr omenade:
·:· A large open gr een space area fo r passi\·e
and active recreational use:
·:• A semi-natural area to be left generally as
wildlife habitat.
Three pedestrian overpasses have also been
established as access points to the island.
As indicated on the land use plan. the more
intensely developed and urban type areas
should be located close to the Capitol Build-
ing .
Promenade
Modifications have been made to the shape
of the river edge to form a focal point for a
floating fountain . Four activity nodes are
programmed to occur at various points along
the river edge promenade. These nodes are
intended to encourage passive r ecreation.
Master Plan Master Plan
Page MP -1
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
They include amenities such as pedestrian
seating. decorative railings and bollards.
prominent view points. and fishing locations.
An e.xcursion boat mooring location Is de-
signed at the northwest terminus point of
the promenade.
The promenade follows the river edge and
accesses the open green space and the nature I
bicycle trail which parallels the length of the
island.
Open Green Space
The open green space area separates the
promenade and natural area. Tills a rea
measures more than 12 acres and would
need to be elevated out of the flood plain by
river dredging and filling procedures. The
dominant amenity within the open green
space is a grass amphitheater suitable for
public gathering. concens. rallies. etc. The
open green space area would have park-type
landscaping throughout. except for the
amphitheater and a large open area that
could be used for spontaneous recreation
activities. as well as structured recreation
events such as a soccer tournament.
Semi-Natural Area
The natural area that is to be left essentially
undisturbed occupies the eastern one-half
of the main Island property. Thinning of
selected trees and undergrowth would be
necessary to facilitate the development of the
nature/bicycle trail.
The trail route would be accessed via the
main promenade walkway and weave to and
from the river's edge along the northern
segment of the island. forming a loop . The
nature walk would pick up again west of the
promenade walk and cross Wears Creek to
provide an access route to the ex.isUng Capitol
West parking lots and additional future park-
Ing.
Master Plan
Page MP-2
Site Access
Access to the site is located at three points .
All proposed crossings are overhead pedes-
trian-scale walkways. although it Is antici-
pated that each would be accessible by
maintenance and emergency vehicles on a
controlled basis. The primary access is directly
northwest of the Capitol. east of the House
Parking Garage. This structure would
complement the e.'\istlng elements of the
Capitol Building. The walkways would ter-
minate in a staging area which has direct
access to the river edge promenade. The
second a nd third pedestrian c r ossings are
le sse r s tructures located a t the Lohman's
Landing. a nd the other west of Wears Creek.
Other Design Elements
Other design elements that would be in-
cluded within Concept Design I include a
visual/noise bulfer which separa tes much of
the island from the railroad. The bulfer
would include a landscaped earth berm with
sound attenuating concrete fencing.
Concept Plan I can be found in AppendLx A.
CONCEPT DESIGN II
Many design elements have been carried
through from the ftrst design.
The land use areas of this plan are essen-
tially the same as Concept Design I with the
urban plaza located near the Capitol and the
semi-natural area r emaining at the eastern
end of the site. An open green space wi th
grass amphitheater has been placed to buffer
and separate the proposed urban plaza en-
vironment from the semi-natural area.
Promenade
Again . the promenade walk is a major feature
of the passive park area. This scheme does
not modify the river edge to the extent of the
first concept. Three passive spaces (activity
nodes) are located at key points along the
promenade walk. A fourth node serves as a
focal point at the end of the stone jetty which
extends into the river just east of the mouth
of Wears Creek. A jetty walk connects the
focal element with the promenade walk. In
this concept design. the e.xcursion boat dock
has been located directly up river of the
promenade (west of Wears Creek).
Three pedestrian overpasses access the is-
land. The main pedestrian overpass is lo-
cated in the same position as in Concept De-
sign I. northwest of the Capitol Building.
Also located similarly to Concept Design I ls
the pedestrian overpass west of Wears Creek.
11lis would provide access to the parking
areas along West Main Street. The third pe-
destrian overpass is proposed as an e.xten -
sion of Madison Street near the Governor's
Mansion.
Semi-natural Area
Proposed within the semi-natural area is a
nature/fitness trail connecting to the prome-
nade and pedestrian overpass at Madison
Street.
Other Design Elements
A visual/noise buffer also parallels the rail-
road and screens the park developed a reas
from the railroad activities. The proposed
buffer would consist of an earth berm. a
sound attenuating concrete screen fence.
supplemented with vegetation.
Concept Plan II can be found in Appendix A.
CONCEPT DESIGN ill
The third Concept Design again follows the
land use plan and groups the more devel-
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
oped elements of the concept together while
leaving much of the island relatively undis-
turbed. The developed areas center around
the Capitol Building. The main pedestrian
overpass is again located northwest of the
Capitol Building immediately east of the House
Parking Garage. The overpass accesses the
promenade. as well as a major plaza area on
axis with the Capitol. Once again. the prome-
nade follows the river edge. Under Concept
Plan III. however. the proposed promenade
follows the river from Harrison Street on the
up river side to directly down river of the
second pedestrian overpass at Madison Slreet.
Various activity nodes are interspersed along
the promenade. The promenade spans the
two prominent river dikes. Between the two
dikes. an activity n ode for fishing and sculp-
tural element has been developed. The prome-
nade includes a wharf area for river boat
docking (directly up river of Wears Creek).
The location of the river boat activity in this
area will require initial and r outine "ha r bo r·
dredging to provide a navigatible docking
area. A water pavilion is also proposed in the
wharf area for covered seating and passive
use.
Located between the developed area and
natural area is a maintenance center which
includes public restrooms and a storage facility
fo r maintenance equipment and m aterial.
Access to a proposed nature/bicycle trail
begins at this point and loops through the
natural area. terminating at the easternmost
node along the promenade.
The third Concept Design also includes a
vis ual/noise barrier which follows the Union
Pacific Railroad line. The barrier would consist
of an earth berm. concrete sound attenuat-
ing barrier fence. and dense landscape screen
plantings.
Concept Plan III can be found in AppendLx A.
Master Plan
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN
A Preliminary Master Plan was developed for
the Adrtan Island site and presented to various
groups. agencies. and interested parties. This
plan was based upon selected design solutions
that were generated during preparation of
the concept master plans. A public meeting
was held in Jefferson City on April 25. 1990.
to present the Preliminary Master Plan to
the public. Reaction to the presentation was
generally positive. In addition. several other
presentations were held with key individuals/
agencies. such as the Corps of Engineers
and the State of Missouri.
Based on the proposed improvements shown
on the Preliminary Master Plan. the Kansas
City District. Corps of Engineers. conducted
a backwater study for Deborah Cooper
Riverfront Park. A major finding of the study
ind icated that the proposed Island
development would not alter backwater
profiles for the Missouri River. This finding
is a positive ·nrst step· toward the District's
acceptance of the proposed plan.
One recommendation of the backwater study.
which affected the Preliminary Master Plan.
was to eliminate the Wears Creek entrance
enclosure as it enters the Missouri River.
Correspondence from the Kansas City District.
Corps of Engineers. concerning the backwater
study can be found in AppendLx B.
The Preliminary Master Plan is virtually the
same as the Final Master Plan with the
following exceptions:
·:• As noted above. Wears Creek was
changed from an enclosed structure
to an open creek.
•:• The handicapped ramp from the main
pedestrian ove:pass to the riverside
pedestrian plaza was realigned to
accommodate the above mentioned
Wears Creek modification.
Master Plan
Page MP-4
AGENCY COORDINATION
In order for Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
to become a reality. it is clearly recognized
that many different agencies and interested
parties will have to lend support to the project.
In an effort to begin the consensus building
process. a variety of agencies were consulted
during the design process. In addition. several
presentations were held to inform individuals.
agencies. and interest groups. Shown on
Page MP-5 is a comprehensive list of contacts
made during the preparation of the Master
Plan. In all cases. everyone contacted was
most helpful and positive in their discussions
of a riverfront park development on Adrian
Island.
;:
Date
Group/Agency
03/20/90
Kansas City Dlstr1ct.
Corps of Engineers
03/29/90
FEMA.
Kansas City
04/04/90
Pre-Application
Consultation Meeting
Corps of Engineers
Jefferson City
04/04/90
Division of Des lgn
& Constnlction
Jefferson City
04/17/90
Union Pactflc Railroad
Sl Louis
04/19/90
Union Electr1c
Jefferson City
0 4 /25 /90
Division of Parks,
Recreation and Hlstortc
Preservation
Jefferson City
04/25/90
Public Meeting
City Hall
Jefferson City
Contact Person
Telephone Number
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
Synopsis
of Discussion
Lyle Kelm Arranged for Aprtl 4 meeting in Jefferson City to
Chief of Permit discuss this project. Dan Bockert and T. Roger Peterson
Evaluation and Enforcement conducted presentations.
(816) 426-5357
AI Schulz
(816) 283-7009
Joe Hughes
Kansas City. COE
(816) 426-5357
Melody Frank
Jefferson City. COE
(314) 634-2248
Robe.rt J. Meyer
Kansas City. COE
(314) 634-2248
Mlke Berendzen
Chief Architect
(314) 751-3339
Bob Niemeyer
(314) 992-1169
Dave Hagen
(314) 635-()171
Bill Farrand
Planning and Development
Program Director
(314) 751-5374
Allen Pollock
(314) 635-6163
Mr. Schulz's office will eventually be required to approve
plans based on Jefferson City and Zoning Department's
recommendations.
Presentation of Preliminary Master Plan. ?reconsultation
meeting which established dialogue leading to the
Corps of Engineers' backwater study of the Missouri
River relative to the Ma.ster Plan proposal. See le tter
from COE dated May 25. 1990, Appendlx B.
Presentation of Preliminary Master Plan.
Design crtterta for pedestrtan bridge over railroad
tracks. Union Pactflc criteria Is:
+ Clearance height of 24' from top of rail.
+ 25' horizontal clearance from centerline of perimeter
tracks. A vartance can possibly be obtained to
bring the horizontal clearance down to a· and 14'
from perimeter tracks.
Discussed movlng/modillcaUon of power lines that
run paraUel to rallroad tracks to mitigate conflict with
pedestr1an overpasses. Two options are possible :
+ Install four (4) new 90' tall poles at $30,000 each
to go over proposed pedestr1an overpasses. EJdstlng
poles are 70' tall
+ Reroute power underground. Cost in millions.
Lines would have to be directed out of Cldstlng
right-of-way .
Presentation of Prellm1nary Master Plan.
Presentatlon of Preliminary Master Plan.
Master Plan
Page MP-5
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
FINAL MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The final master plan for Deborah Cooper
Riverfront Park on Adrian Island is a result
of the combination of Concept Plans I. II and
III. The major design elements incorporated
into the final master plan include: two pe-
destrian overpasses to the island. a river's
edge pedestrian promenade with various ac-
tivity nodes. recreation open space. a grass
amphitheater. a dredged harbor and excur-
sion boat mooring, a visitor concession
b uilding, a noise /visual buffer. and a na-
ture /bicycle trail. Each of these design
elements are generally integrated to form the
co ncept of a pedestrian oriented. passive riv-
erfront p a rk.
As outlined in the Land Use Plan. Page MP -
1. the final master plan segregates the e.'dst-
ing island into two areas: a relatively un-
disturbed semi-natural area for nature and
bicycle trails; and a promenade area to re-
ceive a hardscape treatment with associ-
ated open green space.
SEMI-NATURAL AREA
The semi-natural area is intended to be left
intact except for the development of a na-
ture /bicycle trail for pedestrian access through
the eastern half of the island. Selective tree
and undergrowth removal would also be
accomplished to accentuate open, promi-
nent desirable views. Access to the nature /
bicycle trail would be possible via the prome-
nade walk. Near this access point, a visitor
concession would be located to serve as a
concession stand. public restroom and cre-
ate an area for park maintenance equipment.
Because of its location, the visitor conces-
sion would also present an element of im-
plied supervision/security on the island.
· Master Plan
Page MP-6
PROMENADE
The promenade walk is proposed to generally
follow the refined river edge throughout the
developed half of the island. The promenade
will feature two types of edge conditions.
They are: concrete bulkhead and placed
stone riprap, various types of decorative
pedestrian elements. a ballard and chain
system . as well as a railing for protection
from the river. Numerous activity nodes will
be located along the promenade . The first
activity node is the main plaza area featur-
ing flagpoles and passive pedestrian seating
for viewing of the flo a ting fountain . A second
viewing point will be located at the terminus
of a jetty walk northeast of the Cap itol. This
will include a sculpture focal point and p e-
destrian seating for viewing up and down the
river. The third a ctivity node is south of the
jetty walk viewing point. Tilis activity n o de
includes a pedestrian seating area providing
direct water access a t a variety of river lev el s.
The promenade river e dge will consist of a
vertical concrete wall, rip-rap or both. As
discussed earlier, a decorative concrete ballard
and chain system will provide pedestrian
protection along the river side of the prome-
nade.
Pedestrian-scale lighting will line the oppo-
site side of the promenade approximately
every thirty (30) feet. The pavtng system of
the promenade will be a three component
system. The jetty walk. handicapped access
routes. and controlled vehicle access to the
west are proposed as concrete walkways.
The majority of the promena de walk will b e
a decorative precast concrete unit pavtng
system. Where the various activity node s
occur. a higher level of detailed concrete unit
pavers with natural stone accents will be
used.
EXCURSION BOAT MOORING
One of the potential attractions of the pro-
posed park plan includes the docking of one
or more e:"<cursion boats. The novelty of
riverboats has proved in other cities to be a
significant economic and entertainment
source. Other municipalities have success-
fully marketed rtver boat entertainment. Given
the history of river boats in Jefferson City
and the lmmediate location of Lohman's
Landing, this is an important design feature
of the park. The preliminary plan utilizes the
promenade walk as a staging area for perma-
nent or periodic river boat m ooring. The area
proposed for boat mooring is at the western
end of the promenade and includes the area
on the east and west side of the existing rock
jetty directly up rtver from the mouth of
Wears Creek. The east side of the dike offers
a somewhat protected wnatural· harbor area.
Because the river is dynamic. the harbor. as
well as most of the maintainable river edge.
will require periodic dredging to maintain
adequate depths for the boating activity.
PEDESTR1AN ACCESS
The main pedestrian access to the site. as
proposed. is to be located northwest of the
Capitol Building directly east of the House
Parking Garage. The pedestrian overpass is
to be handicapped accessible with vehicle
access for emergency and maintenance
vehicles. The area where the overpass be-
gins (south of the railroad) will consist of an
entry plaza of varying levels. This plaza
provides access to the House Garage and
access to the pedestrian bridge. This wide
pedestrian-scale bridge is to include land-
scape plantings in planters. decorative p av-
ing. and Ughttng . The bridge terminates in
a raised platform viewing plaza overlooking
the entire developed area of the park. The
transition from the elevated platform to the
park below is possible by a grand stairway
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
and a handicapped accessible walkway, both
terminating at the river promenade.
The second pedestrian overpass is located as
a continuation of Madison Street. This
overpass would begin on the south side of
the Union Pacific Railroad approximately 30'
above the railroad. Access will be provided
from Madison Street and Lohman's Landing
by stairway. Handicapped and maintenance
vehicle access will be provided via East State
Street.
At the north end of the overpass . an elevated
plaza for viewing will directly access the
promenade.
A third access point to the island would be
located at the existing Harrison Street wat
grade· crossing. This is proposed as a
pedestrian. as well as a controlled vehicle
c rossing point.
OPEN GREEN SPACE
The open green space area proposed north-
east of the Capitol on Adrian Island consists
of two distinct elements -a recreation open
space and a grass a mphitheater. The recrea-
tion open space is slightly large r than a
football field. It is anticipated that this would
be used for unstructured activities such as
frisbee. football. soccer. and other unsched-
uled recreational activities. The area is also
large enough for specially scheduled sport-
ing events.
The grass amphitheater is also located in
this o pen green space with the prominent
views directed due north. The amphitheater
is to be constructed from dredge material
necessary to ob tain a smooth design edge of
the island. Earth flll will be used to form the
amphitheater in lieu of a continuous sloped
hillside. This will provide flat spaces for ease
of seating. The amphitheater is to be used
Master Plan
Page MP-7
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
as a rally area by civic groups or entertain-
ment events. It could also be used as a
centrally located viewing area for celebra-
tions such as the July 4th fireworks.
Additional design elements included within
the final master plan include installing con-
crete retaining walls. rtprap and landscaping
at Wears Creek to visually enhance the open
channel through the park.
A noise/visual barrier is proposed along the
south side of the park parallelling the rail-
road. The barrier would run between Monroe
Street at the east end with Harrison Street to
the west. The barrier will include a raised
earth berm with dense landscape screen plant-
ings. In areas where the promenade and am-
phitheater are directly adjacent to the berm.
a screen fence will also be included to en-
hance the barrier.
Master Plan
Page MP-8
T
..
•
-
Masler Plan for.
DEBORAH
pARK cooPEliVERFR?~T ..... "'"
o~ ~H"~
.. ' ... ""
!i
.::::..::--... i:•'-_:::'c
LEGEND
A rro,.,rn..od~ ...,._.a-.....
~-""' ..............
'"= ~--""'-'-"•• ...
C A<npllithnl"' ........... .._ ,_, .......
0 ~b<n Ptdntri~n A«"tU
~~ ........... _
E E.<Uni~>n 0IJ.It Moann~
-~
Housing Authority
f 'l.i....-ong P!az~ ··-·-G Fount~in /<1
H W•tn Acrno & 5•"in,_
l \iulor Conn·noon ., .... -.........
~ .._ .......... ...
I Prdnlnan 0•"1''"
K Dlcyd• & N•tu,.. Twl
l Visual & Noi•• Dufl<r
~---~~
M RKn"•tion Op•n Sp•r•
f':~ _,.,, . -
Master Plan
P.1ge MP -9
Ol · Jl~ agt'J
....
fi puv v s.m:J uo !P"S
-----------
/
t--·-
,Uiuauri RiviM' Propvud Grade
Park ATI'a
-------------------· ----'--.
~· ....--
~ __ L_T '·~-~.,~~ .... J -~·~·---[-
Prdestrian Bridge
/
//
Section AA
View Looking East
/---------~~ -~
"·
------~ ~ ........
.:~
/
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Coover Fowzdatiotz
-------/ __.--
•
l.,. """" ,.,,_ Entry M Mudison St.
(Stairway and Handicap Ramp)
J
PloJ -r:., .. ~G~d,---t Propo"d G"d' -rNoMol A~o
Section BB
View Looking N01th
Madison Street
Pedestrian Crossings
Page MP-11
:!! 1/DnOJl/.L 0 51n0 UOJP<>S
~Pedestrian
1
Over-Pass Beyond
~,___ Union Pacific Railroad
Section CC
~Visual I Noise Buffer
Union Pacific Railroad
Section DD
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundatiott
Nature /Bicycle Trail ~
Concession I Maintenance
Facility :-1
Promenade-------.
Amphlilie~]
•••
Missouri Ri ver
l Visual I Noise Buffer
J r-Promenade r-Fountain Jet
!, Plaza ~ating ~
· L Union Pacific Railroad Missouri River
Section EE
Master Plan
Page MP-13
Deborah Cooper Riv erfront Park
,.,. ......
Section Cuts F Through G
.-... ... ··
... ... ~
,------------Visual I Noise Buffer
-------Viewin g Pl aza
I .
L-Union Pacific Railroad
'------House Par kin g
Section FF
./
------Scr een Planting
Misso uri River
,--Excursion Boat Docking
·'
L Union Pacific Ra i l r oad
M i ssou r i River
Section GG
Master Plan
Page MP-14
•
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
Phasing Plan
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
PHASING PLAN
INTRODUCTION
A Phasing Plan h as been established for the
development of Deborah Cooper Riverfront
Park on Adrian Island . The Phasing Plan
consists of four (4) improvement projects
which are prioritized in sequence for the
planned evolution of the riverfront park. Each
phase provides new opportunities for visitor
and conununity activities culminating in a
facility that meets the goals of the Master
Plan Development Program. The estimates
of probable construction cost for each phase
are based on 1990 dollars and do not include
design fees. surveys. geotechnical
investigations or administrative costs. A ten
percent ( 1 0%) miscellaneous and contingency
has been added to each phase to account for
unknown factors which will be encounter ed
during r efinement of the Master Plan design.
In addition. each cost item (where applicable)
is given a maximum and rn.1nimum range to
allow for final design fle."'dbility depending on
the financial resources available at the Ume
of implementation. Where practical. the
following descriptions and cost items of each
phase are referenced by key letter (A) to the
:vtaster Plan drawing.
Phase I Costs
Cl earing and Earthwork
Pedestrian Overpass (J)
Promenade (A)
Water Access and Seating (H)
River Edge Treatment
Bicycle and Nature Trail (K)
Landscaping and Site Amenities
Electric Utility Adjustment
Miscellaneous and Contingency (10%)
Total Phase I
PHASE I
Housing Authority,
City of JetfersoH and
Deborah Cooper Fou11datio1l
Phase I development provides for initial
pedestrian access to the riverfront park
consisting of a pedestrian overpass (J) located
at Madison Street near the Governor's
Mansion: and the first segment of the
promenade (A) departing from the north
platform of the pedestrian overpass for a
distance of approximately 700 feet. The
promenade terminates at an activity node
consisting of a water access and seating area
(H). A river edge treatment consisting of rip
rap matertal extends to the east of the activity
node to the e."dsting river edge cond ition .
Substantial clearing. filling and grading will
b e necessary to make the transition from the
pedestrian overpass heigh t to the river's edge.
Fill material would be obtained from d redging
operations along the river bank. The entire
bicycle and nature trail (K) Is included in
Phase I. Landscaping and site amenities
include plant material. lawn irr1gation. seeding
a nd site furnishings. In order to facilitate
construction of the pedestrian overpass. the
existing electric transmission lines located
o n the north side of the railroad tracks will
have to be raised above the proposed
pedestrian overpass. This cost is included in
Phase I.
Cost Range
Maximum Minimum
$ 836.000
450.000
117.000
150.000
115.000
45.000
50.000
60.000
182.000
$2.005.000
s 836.000
400.000
88.000
150 .000
86.000
45.000
50.000
60.000
171.000
$1,886.000
Master Plan Phasing Plan
Page PP -1
Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park
PHASE ll
Phase ll development will encompass the
construction of the recreation open space
(M) and amphitheatre (C) which includes site
cleartng, filling and grading. The promenade
(A) continues from the end of the Phase I
construction (at the water access and seating
area) westward following the rtver's edge and
includes the plaza area (B) and the water
access and seating area (H) near the plaza.
In order to facilitate the promenade, a
promenade headwall will be constructed in
a curvalinear fashion forming a new vertical
Phase ll Costs
Cleartng and Earthwork
Promenade Headwall
Promenade (A) and Plaza (B)
Fountain Jet (B)
Water Access and Seating (H)
River Edge Treatment
Landscaping and Site Amenities
Miscellaneous and Contingency ( 1 0%)
Total Phase ll
Master Plan
Page PP -2
rtver edge. The floating fountain jet (G)
located east of the plaza 1s included in Phase
II. A rtver edge treatment consisting of rtp
rap material forms the north edge of the
plaza. A portion of the earth berm forming
the visual and noise buffer (L) between the
recreation open space and Union Pacific
Rallroad corridor is included in Phase II.
Landscaping and site amenities include plant
matertal, lawn lrrtgation, seeding and site
furnishings such as benches. flagpoles.
bollard/chain rails and lighting.
Cost Range
Maximum Minimum
$ 525.000
529,000
267,000
45,000
150.000
76,000
130.000
172.QQQ
$1,894.000
$ 525,000
397.000
200,000
45.000
150.000
57.000
98,000
147.QQQ
$1,619.000
i
;
.1.
PHASEm
Phase m development is assoc:ated with the
construction of the primary ~destrian
overpass (J) near the Capitol Building. The
perlest:rtan O\--erpas5 includes an enuy plaza
south of the railroad tracks at the exiSting
plaza nonh of the Capitol Bwlding: the
~ss structure: and from the nonh
abutmenL a formal st.a.Irv.-ay doo;m to the
Phase m Costs
C!eartng and Eanm.-or'A:
Perlest:rtan Overpass (J)
Formal Stairway
Wears Crttk Wall and Pedestnan Bnege
21ectr1C Ctility Adjustment
Misceilaneous and Contingency ( 1 0%)
ToW Phase m
Housing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
plaza (B). Clearing. filling and grading will
be :-equired to establish the nonh abutment
height and transitional grade to access the
plaza from the pedestr1a.n overpass. In order
t o facilitate construction of the pedestrian
O\-erpas5. the existing electric transmiSsio n
lines located on the north side of the railroad
tacks will have to be raised above the proposed
pedestr1a.n overpass. This cost is included in
Phase ill. Tilis Phase also includes installation
of a pedestrian bndge 0\-er Wears Creek. and
retam1ng wall tmprovements to the creek
channel.
Cost Range
Maximum Ylnimum
s 7 60.000
1.000.000
113.000
235.000
60.000
216.00()
$2.384.000
s 760.000
750.000
100.000
198.000
60.00J
186.00()
$2.054.000
Phasing Plan
P~g~ PP • 3
Deborah Cooper Riuerfront Park
PHASE IV
Phase IV completes the facilities as shown on
the ~er Plan drawing. Facilities in this
Phase include the extension of the promenade
(A) from the plaza (B) to the e::rcursion boat
mooring area. (E): rtver ~ treatment from
the plaza 'W'estward to the e:cisting publlc boat
ramp: and a walkway from the ax:ursion boat
ramp area. west to the existing publlc boat
ramp. From the nonh aburment of the prtmary
pedestrian m-erpass. an access ramp and stairs
are programmed for this Phase. The ramp will
t erminate at the plaza (B) v.-hile the stairs v.-111
Phase IV Costs
Cleartng and Eanhv.·ork
Promenade W
Water ~ and Seating (Hl
Excursion Boat ~oortng (El
Ri\-er Edge Trearment
Access Ramp and Stairs
Boat Ramp Walk
Jetty Walk and V 1ewing Plaza (F1
Screw Fence
Visitor Concession In
Landscaping and Site .Amenities
~tiscellaneous and Contingency ( 1 ~~
Total Phase IV
Master Plan
P~ge PP • 4
lead to another water access and seating
area fHl near the excursion boat mooring
area. A jetty walk and viewing plaza (F1 is
proposed on the easternmost e:dstlng jetty.
A screen fence is scheduled for ronstruction
on the visual and noise buffer ru to mitigate
the activities associated with the rail.road
corridor. The \isitor concession m. located
nonh of the secondary pedesman overpass.
is also programmed for Phase rv . Landscaping
and site amenities include plant material.
lawn tmgation. seeding and site furniShings
such as benches. ballard /chain rails and
lighting.
Cost Range
Maximum Ylnlmum
s 66.000
152.000
150.000
406.000
234 .000
80.000
23.000
80.000
66.000
250.000
140.000
165.()()()
$1.812.000
s 66.000
114.000
150.000
304.000
175.000
80.000
23.000
0
66.000
250.000
105.000
127 .()()()
$1.460.000
f
I
r
Phase I
Phase II
Phase ill
Phase IV
Master Plan ToW
HollSing Authority,
City of Jefferson and
Deborah Cooper Foundation
Cost Range
Maximum Minimum
$2.005.000
1.894.000
2.384.000
1.812.000
$8.095.000
$1.886 .000
1.619.000
2 .054.000
1.460.000
$7.019.000
Phasing Plan
P~g~ PP-5
Deborah Coopc-Riverfront Park
I I '
I '
Appendix A
Deborah Cooper Riv erfront Park
Appendix B
Alli"LY TO
4TTilNTION 01":
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
K ANSAS C I TY DISTR I CT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
700 FEDERAL BUILDING
KANSAS CITY . MISSOURI 6-4106 -2896
tvla y 25' 1990
Mr. Daniel K. Beckert
Booker Associates, Inc.
1139 Olive Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Dear Mr. Beckert:
M .
D..:.
This is in response to your April 19, 1990 letter requesting
a backwater study for the Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park on
Adrian Island at Jefferson City, Missouri.
The study has been completed and the following is provided
based on the information you furnished.
Elevations shown on your plan sheets are very nearly the
same as topography developed by Kansas City District in the
Missouri River floodplain study mapping dated 1976 through
1978. Grading and minor smoothing of Adrian Island is proposed
as is, removing native vegetation and replacing it with
different species in prescribed planting zones. Reshaping and
enclosure of Wears Creek from the railroad to the Missouri
River is shown in the proposal. A small convenience
concession building is the only enclosed structure shown.
Since the island presence in the backwater data has not
changed, no change is expected in the backwater profiles for
the Missouri River.
It is recommended that the Wears Creek exit to the Missouri
River not be enclosed. Silting at the railroad bridge which
is the present exit, has been a maintenance problem. At times,
this has aggravated flooding situations during Wears Creek high
flows. Adding a conduit riverward of the railroad bridge is
not practical because it will have serious silt deposition
problems that will be difficult to correct. A better alternative
would be to create an open channel with a maintenance corridor
adjacent t~it on both sides. This would reduce the cost of
maintenance and damage to plantings during maintenance operations .
The proposal also indicates the use of a portion of two
stone jetties constructed and maintained by the Corps of
Engineers as part of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and
-2-
Navigation Project. It will probably be necessary to raise the
elevation and widen these two jetties to facilitate their use
for boat mooring. These structure modifications will not
adversely affect their project purpose nor are these
modifications expected to affect the backwater elevations.
A copy of Missouri River profiles is attached. If you have
any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to write
me or to call Mr. Joe Hughes at 816-426-5357.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
M. D. Jewett
Regulatory Branch
Operations Division
i
I
I I_ I__-----, -. i
.I.
.: .
i .. ,