Loading...
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 .. ,