90-509 , � , +
O R I G I N � L,,,, � Council File � �� ".SOq
i
Green Sheet ,� 7�
RESOLUTION
TY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � �
Presented B
Referred To � Committee: Date
WHEREAS, The Division of Parks and Recreation and its consultant, SKD
Architects Inc. , have prepared a feasibility study for reuse of the existing picnic
pavilion at Harriet Island Park in response to the request of the City Council in its
Resolution 89-773, and
WHEREAS, said study contains an analysis of the physical condition of the
existing pavilion--structural , mechanical , electrical , interior and exterior
materials, to assist in determining the building's condition with respect to
remodeling versus construction of a new facility, and
WHEREAS, said study contains a building program, including spatial needs and
design parameters, developed in consultation with Parks and Recreation, the West Side
Citizen's Organization, the Harriet Island Ad Hoc Design Advisory Committee and the
Saint Paul Riverfront Commission's Harriet Island Task Force, to enable evaluation of
the existing building's location and capability to serve the public need for picnic
facilities in the park versus construction of a new facility, and
WHEREAS, said study concludes, upon evaluation of building, site and cost
considerations that the existing building is in sound condition and with appropriate
remodeling can serve the public need in virtually the same manner as a new facility,
and
WHEREAS, the Division of Parks and Recreation, the West Side Citizen's
Organization, the Harriet Island Ad Hoc Design Advisory Committee and the Saint Paul
Heritage Preservation Commission recommend that the existing pavilion be retained and
reused, although the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission �has recommended that the
pavilion be replaced with a new facility,
page 1 of 2
._ � _
, . . �`=y'o °.509
ORIGII�AL
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Harriet Island Pavilion shall be retained
and reused, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Division of Parks and Recreation shall proceed with
the design process for remodeling and reuse of said Pavilion and shall , in the design
process, continue to actively seek the advice of the Harriet Island Ad Hoc Design
Advisory Committee, including participation of the West Side Citizen's Organization,
the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that final design be submitted to the
City Council for approval .
page 2 of 2
— Y� Navs Absent Requested by Department of:
imo
oswz
on —� Communit S ices '
acca ee —�
e msn —�
une �— l
z son ''� 8
�— C7 � ?`
Adopted by Council: Date APR 3 1990 gorm Appr v d by City Attorney
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary '
ay: 3 -�—� v
� �
BY� Approved by Ma r for Submission to
ouncil
Approved by Mayor: Date �`�;;�90aPR 3 199� , �
�f By; ..��-�,���
By: /'��������/�
p�Bt.iSHED �'�,�R 141990
. . . G S-� �=�o �9
DEPARTM[NTJOFFICEICOUNCIL DATE INITIATED
CS/Parks and Recreation 2/28/90 GREEN SHEET - No.7�,�-�A�
C�ITACT PERSOW 6 PNONE �pEpqp�Ep1T DIRECTOR� CITY�UNCIL
John Wirka, Tim Agness 292-7400 �M�� crrv��er �GTYCLERK
MU8T BE ON COUNpI A(iENDA BY(OATE� ROUTINO �BUOOET DIRECTOR �FIN.3 T.BERVICES DIR.
�MAYOR(OR A8818TMIT) GE�V��I �
TOTAL#�OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR S '
ACTION REWESTED: �
Approval of Ci ty Counci 1 Resol uti on ��11�C7R'S OFF�C�
RECOMME DATIONB:Approw pq a Reject(F� COUNCiI COMMITTEE/RESEARCFI IONA4
ANALYBT PHONE NO. �
_PLANNINO COMMISSION _GVIL SERVI�COMMI8SION
_qB OOMMITTEE _
�STAFF _ COMMENTB:
_018TRICT COURT _
SUPPORTB WNK�1 COUNdL OBJECTIVE9
Recreation
IMI7IATINO PROBLEM.188UE,OPPO' .�'
Feasibility t Island Picnic Pavilion, as
requested � ' �J�,�.� Recommendation is for remodeling
and re-�se ►n of a new facility.
.��Z��?a
ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED:
Proceed � �e-use of existing paviTion.
A�'����
___� �,� ��
a�„�,���„�: _ �
_ � O-_ - �_
. � . � � � . , . . . •...Y.�� .
None '
DI8ADVANTAQE8 IF NOT APPROVED:
No further design work for remodeling and re=use of existing pavilion. Demolition
of existing pavilion.
t;ouncil t�esearch Cente�
MAR �31990
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION a NA COST/IIEVENUE WDOETED(CIRCLE ONEj 1fE8 NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMIIER
flNANpAL INFORMATION:(EXPUUI� ��
NbTE: COMPLETE DIRECI'IONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE OREEN 3HEET INSTRUCTIONAL
MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASINt3 OFFICE(PHONE NO. 298-422b).
ROUTING ORDER:
Below are proferred routin�s for the five rtwst frsqueM typea of documents:
CONTRACTS (assumos authorized COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amsrid, Bd�s./
bud�et exists) Accspt. OraMs)
1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director
2. initfating Depertmsnt 2. Budget Diroctor
3. Ciry Attomsy 3. Gty Attomsy
4. Mayor 4. Maya/Aesi6tant
5. Ffnance&Mgmt Svcs. Oirector 5. ,City Council
6. Flnar�ce AccouMinp 6. Chief AccouMant, Fln&Mgmt Svcs.
ADMINISTRATIYE ORDER (Budpet COUNCIL RE30LUTION (ell others)
Flevialon) and OROINANCE
1. qctivity Mana�er 1. Initiating DspaRment Dinsctor
2, 2. C� A
3. D��utment�rector�M 3. M�AssistaM
4. Budget DI►ector 4. (�ty Coilncil
5. City Gsrk .
6. Chief Aocountent, Fin�Mgmt Svcs.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (ell others)
1. Inkiatinp DepartmeM
2. Gty Attorney
3. Mayor/AssistaM
4. City Clerk
TOTAL NUMBER OF SI(iNATURE PA(iES
Indicats the#�of papes on'which signeturos are required snd papercliP
sach of these�
ACTION REGIUE8TED
Desc�ibe what the project/request sssks b axom�l�h in either chrondogi-
cal order or order of importance,whicMver is m�pt approp�iste for the
iasus. Do not w�Ite compbte s�rnencsa. Bepin s�h item in your list with
a verb.
REOOMMENDATIONS
Complete if the issue in qus�fon has besn presented before any body, public
or private.
SUPPORT3 WHICH OOUNqI OBJECTIVE?
Indic�s which Coundl ob1�N)I��P�roQ�t supports by listing
the ksy word(s)(HOU31N(i, RECREATION, NEICiHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
BUD(iET,SEWER SEPARATION).(8EE OOMPLETE U3T IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.)
COUNCII COMMITTEEIRESEARqi REPORT-OPTIONAL A3 REGIUESTED BY COUNCIL
INITIATINt3 PROBLEM, 13SUE,OPPORTUNITY
Explain the situation or condidons that created a need for your project
or request.
ADVANTA(?E31F APPROVED
I�te whethsr this is tlmply an annwl budpst procedure requfred by law/
chaRer or whethsr there are sp�d�c in wh�h ths City of 3aiM Paul
ar�d its citizens will beneflt irom this p�/actbn.
DISADVANTA(3ES IF APPROVED
What nsgetive effects or mejor changes to exiatlng or past processea might
thfs proj�ctlroquest produce If ft is pas�ed{e.g.,traiticc delays, noiae,
tax Incroa�ss or asssumsnts)?To Whom?When?For Faw bng?
DISADVANTAOES IF NOT APPROVED
VYhat will be the r�epadve oonsequsncea ff the promised aCtfon is not
approved? InabiNry to dNivsr ssrvk�?Contlnued high traffic, noiae,
accident rats?Loss of reven�s?
FlNANGAL IMPACT
Afthough you must tailor the informatbn you provide here to the issue you -
are a�rsseinp, in psnerel you must answer two qu�tbns: How much is it
�oing to cost?Who is pang to pay?
. - �I�-�a -,�a 9
;0:
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
March 5, 1990
T0: Mayor Scheibel
FR: Roy Garza �
Robert Pir�
,,
RE: Harriet Island Picnic Pavilion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Division of Parks and Recreation has prepared the attached resolution
to bring the issue of re-use of the Harriet Island Picnic Pavilion to the
City Council for action. This is an important issue, particularly for the
West Side community, where there is a very strong sentiment to save this
building.
The attached feasibility study for re-use of the Pavilion recommends
remodeling and re-use of the building rather than its demolition and
construction of a new facility. We agree, and this is our recommendation
to you.
Parks and Recreation staff have presented the study to the West Side
Citizen's Organization, the Harriet Island Ad Hoc Design Advisory
Committee, the Heritage Preservation Commission chairperson and staff, and
the Riverfront Commission. With the exception of the Riverfront
Commission, all are in favor of remodeling and re-use of the existing
building.
We request your support and approval of the resolution for submittal to the
City Council .
Along with the draft resolution and copy of the feasibility study, we have
attached copies of the Riverfront Commission's Resolution, a letter from
Robert Frame, HPC Chair, correspondence from WSCO, and also, a draft letter
of transmittal from you to the City Councilmembers.
Upon your approval we will provide individual copies of the feasibility
study for each Councilmember.
RG/RP/kc
attach.
cc: John Wirka
Tim Agness
Jody Martinez
Patricia James
. - , �,,c�a-5�9
:.0:
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
March 8, 1990
T0: City Council President William Wilson
and City Council embers
FR: Mayor Scheibel
RE: Harriet Island Picnic Pavilion Feasibility Study
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am transmitting the enclosed Council Resolution and Harriet Island
Feasibility Study to you for your consideration and action. The study is
the result of the July 6, 1989 Council Resolution No. 89-773, requesting
the Division of Parks and Recreation to: "Study the feasibility of the re-
use of the existing pavilion at Harriet Island Park. "
PURPOSE OF STUDY
In November of 1987 the City Council adopted the Downtown Riverfront plan,
which included a recommendation for Harriet Island. That plan proposed
that a new pavilion be located several hundred feet west of the existing
pavilion. However, during review of the Lilydale/Harriet Island Re�ional
Park Plan, the Division of Parks and Recreation recommended rehabilitation
of the existing pavilion. This was due in part to the strong sentiments of
the West Side Citizen's Organization and the Harriet Island Ad Hoc Design
Advisory Committee. As a result, the City Council requested this study.
The study was prepared by a consultant, SKD Architects, Inc. , in
cooperation and consultation with the Division of Parks and Recreation, the
West Side Citizen's Organization, the Harriet Island Ad Hoc Design Advisory
Committee, and the Riverfront Commission's Harriet Island Task Force.
FINDINGS AIVD RECOMMENDATION
The feasibility study concludes that the existing Pavilion is in sound
condition and that with appropriate remodeling it can serve the public need
in virtually the same manner as a new facility. The study therefore
recommends remodeling and re-use of the Pavilion, a recommendation which is
supported by the Department of Community Services, the West Side Citizen's
Organization, the Harriet Island Ad Hoc Design Advisory Committee, and the
Heritage Preservation Commission. This recommendation is not supported by
the Riverfront Commission, however, which has concluded that a new facility
should be built, as called for in the 1987 Downtown Riverfront Plan.
I agree with the recommendation to remodel and re-use the existing Harriet
Island Pavilion, and this is my recommendation to you. Thank you for your
consideration.
JS
enc.
cc: Roy Garza
Robert Piram
Warren Nanson
W�:��°�' ��o-5� g
s���z�.'<, �"h��;`
,� ���/'L
y
C� �����
t' iq' y i � � ��;°i �I C,j <.s
�
'� O�. '. � �1 y t ', ut... ,
, St. Paul, MN 55107 '°�'-D�^�v
�25�,��,� 293-2708
�°r�t-UBC�, ??, ��au�i
't'i}ji:'Sii� �Y'S'1�::�1i�
��r.:;_.�i.F''rli =:t. ���j��� (.;t��I_fII��P_:1�
:'' = =:i��; ti�y�l
_:+ L�_j i�� , P��.j �c� I i�
`'�.��. i..iC �';�,ilz:iifi:
� yil� �,,;�r-jfl fii�tij ::,tyfr t�}r '�;';�r:;t _��ijr 1_iti�?fi3 I It"i�hfilZ�3ti011�:_' :?t�"il�ji�:il���iiit'f TOt�tflB !-�tgfltjC�(�ilfi th�:
;;�;�-s-rf;7 tj;yt-P-1rT i::l8fnj �ryb'ili���i.
- � .-, ,;,_,,_,
';S �Tj `,r�tfirfliC�C�- (�, i a���� iiiC?tlf���. t�ir �4''���=il:l� ��i;,y�'ij '�;'��trij �1fG�ii?flU�s�:��i.�fii::,lJ���1!�rt tt�p r-rt�ntir.�n uf
th�'r_. i:i�r t!:flt D��v1�7�i�, tij�;'_�i_.1��,N��t.a �NttrY til tf�"r_. (Ii;jijiir- :y:;�:.1(li� ff��jt tFi'r i_Ut t r(1} ���yY`ili��� h� r"'r.t."y1fIC��
����Ii;��j T��r I,G�iyr-,y���iiq i�i F!8i"( �r# 1:��5i���. ;ii ����jlti,-; i:_t i _��•� ,;y�„1�1�;r; <y����;� �,Yt;#jitr�
, E'Q:jtli�4na tilr' �ry'v'lil!�(1 4lrte i:jrr��}:ytr�j iif! tfiC ����,�p:1 ;i;jr ,iT Tii;yi *lfiir ,.ii� -;:jf�iJ �iriifi�r ,,i�:`,,;7i�;;
;;:G��i;t-i. ;i,� t"r?��(i�?!ifi iii��ft� [i,j'�riiiU(i. - -
!�:� ��.=: tCU( �18i-�� 1 r, !`:���II �IIYYt��I��. '�'4�:�i_;i�_: �=��1�+�1`iQ 8(uj ��y(ii� (13r 1_i�mri��tt�c Fr.3�'tj�_jR:y�rij lfi
�fj:;�_US•`::1�!fi:; 'viltft ftl8tti�+f'•f:;iif f}tY �:i�verfr-���,#i:nri�niis:_:j�ifl 5�uj �hY h'8t'IG�i 8fid F'��_r?a#inn Ca�par#rr�?nt
;rt��]t-�j',�iQ �!prT_�rt:� TLit� �i{r u�]'��i�ir_�r;. Th�':,� �;i:�;=��:��1�?(i:_ fr;]il�t-iiiE'��tit'�:_�!_1�'a" Ci�'�1C?trl�3t�ri�i�ll t�}�
'-�:�r;-i�t i:�i�rnj pl�yr�:� ni�?trY:3r�r,j�j, #hr i_t#y..h����l�j t-�t:�1ri yrnj'�N��t'E; +;fi#h#!'i?�:�t:'s#ir�g bi�ii�jing r�th�r
�.il��Ci �"'�I�;y1_I'.�i �}��i'h"' tit'��t''�,'Pr ;j? ���'r F`$�-�t:;:� ��CjJi7t±lllt•(it I:ti�IL���t%7�ifi�''';ti.1���� 1'il�j)�_�dt?:�, tCliy�tf1C
_.:�_,ti���� t�Utl��if���r:3�i k�r fii0�jtita�j ti� �UlT}?1 ?hr functi�_�n:�1, :3;Yfr�rt;�1, .:itY�ruj�.�,.t re����ir�eri�enfi�
;�=;;-rC 's;r - �;:�'•;'tli��r�.
. . ,_r,���� . .. . . .-:r __ �_��'.-; _ _�,- , �i. t�l, �� iii, :i� �.� __ ir_.?,�ili�_�� �G�_'7�-- -� !1. ii�{��:�i i�_;ji
=:iiirill��_8fli:'r. iifl tF1'r_. �';yr:j1 ij+jF'. '��i�F'_;� ']lijr�'; iiy'v'r i�Cii�Q fi:r'�liiir-i'r.:; :j�t�;in:j�tr?ij'�.rjth tfl? �1.3'v1�lC�ft,8
-4, "i�= ;,''rr-'ri-rt-.] �+�S1��JTIIi�. TIIY 4„3'�;'1 i1�+it [.t�:�'�l1�i�_. ;y =,ri�:;Y Ili �,1},�GY 811�� y�:=i�Tlilrf'tll�fl'wl�Ci tfiG ��iY;;t
',(! ;j f�r1�lF�ti�ir"hi�iiij�w'�IYr� f11:3t�1r 1�: buiidi r��a�: ,3n�j Ynti.r� �iC1��rIttQ1��'�inj�f3 �,.1(IC��J�jl(1�� t�}t? C!h?1.��I��J��f1i�Q��
'7;ijl!i� ?�It' ���Y��� f II%.�'lY tiF:h!(j l�u4i�ijl,�?•1� `;;'lii�jll �YI_t'il� illGili3�r 1�. T4;Y tji�:::�!'i3l:tjf:�� jif t�iY �I:ySi�l���i'vrtlil��j
?y� „ai�_�nt':li Tn!' fY!5,,;� t'Yi'ii'3�fi��1� Tit �ir';� �� �.�i����r�ti�i}_: �tYl��y'�F!�I tri_F.�'��C_t jl�r': :y4��� j't:; �-�yrt-
i+�j��i ii. �'f•,i=i1_11:j#t"fj(11�I IJ�"1 F:' t � t t r f'i�r;•'t?��� i:y';��lii ir t'�t- f`Ij, �T talil� Cl:j',?"r.:y�i1.{t�l�k'•:�tj(!i7`.�;y�jf,lJfi
? � �._. r�y r�-. .,, G „_�; L . .�3�,: ,
Sr�i�_;_:_i':: [iii:;jfj�iCt t-'r_.QBt-�jl(P t -
? flr �j:3'�r 1�1�!(i, �i}r,"y:;r i_i i(1t�J�_t (I 1?.
�_�1 sii:r�t 'r_.�u.
��� � ..�- l/��.�
�
�,r-i�a�,Yt t~1:jr#ir�
�'t-r_:;�7r(1#
r...
+:G. ; ;ji�iir- ,Il fil :ii_f�rj�irj
_;t,; ;_c���rn_il ;��1YnitiY.��_�
_ ..'v'r L��fit]ii:l:; Ei�ll i_fi8it
. , (,�-= y�-.��9
`�1T= ,, _ CITY OF SAINT PAUL
�° +. - FiERITAGE PR€SERVATION COMA�IISS10�1 --
� s
o a
� =j j�j o 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102
• ^ 612-22&3270
i��•
IAMES SCHEIBEL ��
MAYOR ������
February 8, 1990
FEB 121990
Mr. John Wirka & RE�F ����5
Division of Parks and Recreation CREAT14N
300 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Harriet Island Pavilion
Dear Mr. Wirka:
The Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the future of the Harriet Island Pavilion, as discussed in the
Pavilion Feasibility Study, prepared December 19, 1989, by SKD Architects,
Inc. , with the Division of Parks � Recreation.
In the 1983 Final Report of the Historic Sites Survey of Saint Paul and Ramsey
County� the Harriet Island Pavilion is listed as a "Site of Major
Significance." It was designed by Charles W. Wigington, under the direction
of noted City Architect Charles A. Bassford. It is part of a nationwide.
heritage of WPA buildings that increasingly are being recognized for their
unique contributions to American architecture. It survives virtually
- unaltered. Since it was constructed in 1941, it will not be eligible for
historical designation until it is 50 years old in 1991.
In light of these considerations, the Commission strongly supports the
continued use of this architecturally significant park structure, and would
not support demolition for new construction.
S �rely, �
' 1'V�" -� �
Robert M. Frame III
Chair
1tMF:ss
sues/11/wirka �
_ . ��� -�� `�
. CITY OF SAINT PALIL
RI VERFRONT COMMISSIONRESOL Ll TION
file number 90�01��= '- `� ,
date 1-18-90
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission is charged witY► advising the
Mayor and City Council on plans involving the redevelopment of the Riverfront;
and
WHEREAS, Harriet Island reconstruction is one of the key elements in creating
a new vision for the Riverfront and in stimulating private development in the
area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering seven issues relating to
Lilydale/Harriet Island Regional Park development:
1. The size and configuration of the upper and lower harbors to be
determined at a later date;
2. The feasibility and advisability of developing a channel between
the marina's upper and lower harbors;
. 3. Whether to use a sheer boom or water break for the Lower Harbor; .
4. The feasibility of reusing the existing pavilion;
5. The necessity .for a levee at Pickerel Lake;
6. The inclusion of Navy Island in the Master Plan; and
7. The type of camping accommodations to be provided at Lilydale; and
WHEREAS, a joint meeting of the Riverfront Commission's Harriet Island Task
Force and its Plan Review Committee was held on January 12, 1990, where
presentations regarding four of these issues were heard and discussed and
recommendations were made; and
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Commission considered these recommendations at its
regular meeting on January 18, 1990; �
NOW, THEREFORE� BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission
recommends to the Mayor and the City Council the following:
1. That Navy Island be included as part of the Master Plan with the
Minnesota Boat Club remaining and the city-owned portion developed as a
sister city theme park; and
(
m�� Pegqy Lynch in favor 11
��� Ronni e Brooks against
.. .. - �yp-,��9
%�
2. That the Pickerel Lake flood protection project at Lilydale proceed as
outlined in the Master Plan since it will mitigate the loss of wetland
habitat caused by the expanded runway at Saint Paul Downtown Airport; i�t ,
represents a valuable joint effort by many different public and private •
groups; the levee proposed for Pickerel Lake will be designed in such a
way that it will appear to be a natural land formation; and
3. That the proposal to create a channel between the two marina harbors at
Harriet Island not be approved and that the advantages of providing a
greater variety of ways for people to experience the water, of lessening
the stagnation within the two harbors, and of providing an alternative
way for boaters to enter the river further upstream from the Wabasha
Bridge area do not outweigh the disadvantages of competing with the
river as the center of park activities, reducing accessibility to the
whole park because of the need for bridges, reducing the availability of
land for other park amenities and large group uses by taking up 30X of
the existing land area, increasing walking distances by requiring park
users to park further away from their destination, requiring the removal
of the existing stand of mature trees, and costing an additional $5 to
$10 million even without the necessary amenities to make the channel
attractive, making the expenditure of the additional $5 - $10 million
not a good use of scarce funds, and that the advantages the channel
could provide be incorporated into the park design without the addition
of the channel itself; and -
� 4. That the existing pavilion be replaced with a new facility, since the
study regarding the reuse of the pavilion demonstrates that a new
pavilion can be located where it will provide maximum exposure to the
river and better service to local, c' ty, and regional users year round,
and that Alternative C, new pavilion, was the top rated choice in the
consultant's rating scheme; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Riverfront Commission expresses its
willingness to meet with the City Council to .explain its recommendations more
thoroughly.
�