downtown bridge aesthetics plan

7/27/2019 Downtown bridge aesthetics plan

1/38

Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation Plan

March 7, 2013

AESTHETICS & ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN & RECORD OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS

LOUISVILLE-SOUTHERN INDIANA OHIO RIVER BRIDGES PROJECT DOWNTOWN CROSSING

Submitted By: Walsh Construction 100 Witherspoon Street Louisville, KY 40202 Ju

001R d f R d ti d D i i C i dd 1


2/38

A E I & R e c o r d o f R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d D e c i s i o n s

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................2

AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Introduction .......................................................................................................................5

From the RFP: 9.1.1 Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager ....................................6

From the RFP: 9.1.2 Methodology ..................................................................................6

From the RFP: 9.1.2.1 Commitment to Context Sensitive Design and Solutions ....7

From the RFP: 9.1.2.2 Producing an Aesthetics and EnhancementsImplementation Plan .......................................................................................................7

From the RFP: 9.1.3.1 Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation Plan ...........16

From the RFP: 9.2.2 General Aesthetic and Enhancement Requirements ..............19

From the RFP: Historic Mitigation Requirements .....................................................19

From the RFP: 9.2.3 Landscape Plan ...........................................................................20

FINAL RECORD OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS

Section 1 - Surface exture Plan and Aesthetic & Enhancement

reatment Location Plan Map .........................................................................................24

Section 1 .............................................................................................................................25

Section 2 .............................................................................................................................31

Section 3 - Surface exture Plan Map .............................................................................33

Section 3 .............................................................................................................................34

Appendix ......................................................................................................... see enclosed CD


3/38


Introduction

D O W N O W N C R O S S I N G

AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND

RECORD OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS

Tis Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation Plan (AEI) and Record of Recommendations and Deci-

sions (RR&D) is the culmination of a series of meetings with stakeholders to present concepts for Aesthetics

and Enhancements on the Downtown Crossing project by the Walsh Design Build eam (DB). Te process

was outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Downtown Crossing as advertised by the Kentucky

ransportation Cabinet (KYC). Recommendations have been made in collaboration with the Area Advisory

eams (AAs) and Bi-State Management eam (BSM), in consultation with the Bi-State Historic Consultation

eam (BSHC). Te Walsh DB not only met the basic requirements of the RFP but exceeded those require-

ments by holding numerous additional meetings with Area Advisory eam members and interested groups

to develop consensus on solutions. Additionally, meetings were held with the Historic Preservation Advisory

eams from both states on March 27-28, 2013. Te extra meetings and consensus building with all st akeholders

resulted in a better overall product.

Tis document includes the Final AEI and the Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions. Te attached

Appendix CD includes the presentation slides, workbooks, signed workbook sheets from the AA members,

meeting summaries, and a spreadsheet that incorporated all comments and DB recommendations from each

Area Advisory eam Meeting.

By inclusion of all the documents mentioned above, this document represents a complete and accurate record

of how the process unfolded and how decisions were made on this project.


4/38


AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


Submitted By: Walsh Construction 100 Witherspoon Street Louisville, KY 40202 June


5/38


This page left blank intentionally


6/38


AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLANINTRODUCTION

Te Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation

Plan represents the Walsh DB plan to work with

the BSM, BSHC, and the Area Advisory eams to

develop an inormed, nal AEI Plan that identies all

aesthetic and enhancement requirements to be included

in the Downtown Crossing project. Proposed treat-

ments presented herein are sensitive to the Historic

Preservations Plans (HPPs) that have been developed

or the historic properties and districts adjacent to

the Project, as presented in the 2012 First Amended

MOA (FAMOA). Te HPPs will be updated by the

BSM in consultation with the BSHC. Tis Plan

also addresses other commitments applicable to aes-

thetics and enhancements that appear in the FAMOA,

as well as those in the 2012 SFEIS and Revised ROD

(and, by incorporation in those documents, the 2003

FEIS and ROD). Te commitments recorded in the

above-reerenced environmental documentation are

collectively reerred to as the Project Commitments.

In developing this AEI Plan, Walsh DB has consid-

ered the guidelines presented in the Aesthetic Design

Guidelines-the Louisville Southern Indiana Ohio River

Bridges, dated February 2006; and in the Landscape

Design Guidelines and Concepts or the Kennedy In-

terchange, dated August 2006. Tis AEI Plan includes

a Landscaping Plan that (per RFP Section 9.2.3) identi-

es principles and guidelines or Indianas Greenway

Corridor that are similar to those developed in 2006or the Kennedy Interchange. Also, as per RFP Sec-

tion 9.2.2, a set o aesthetic guidelines and principles

were developed.

Tis AEI Plan describes the Walsh DBs approach to

incorporating aesthetics and enhancements through-

out Project development. Te Walsh DB commits to

applying the requirements o the nal AEI Plan to the

design and construction o all permanent structures

including, but not limited to, bridges, retaining walls,

barriers, lighting, sidewalk/bicycle paths, landscape

enhancements, and drainage acilities (per RFP Sec-

tion 9.1).

Te DB will conduct all work necessary to meet the

requirements or aesthetics and enhancements man-

agement, including:

A.Provision o an Aesthetics and Enhancements

Manager (AEM)

B.Provision o Aesthetics and Enhancements

Graphic Support

C. Development and execution o an Aesthetics

and Enhancements Implementation Plan

D. Presentation to and collaboration with the Area

Advisory eams, inclusive o key stakeholders

E. Record o Recommendations and Decisions

Tis AEI Plan is based on the Aesthetics and Enhance-

ments Management Plan (AEM Plan) submitted as part

o the Walsh DB echnical Proposal in response to

the RFP. Tis AEI Plan:

Denes the responsibilities and authority of the

Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager.

Describes the range of options/alternatives (nar-

rative discussion and/or sketches/graphics/render-

ings) that the DBT will present to the AAT and the

BSMT, in consultation with the BSHCT.

Provides more specic details and elaborates on the

qualications, responsibilities, and authority o the

Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager to ensure

that the nished project achieves the expected level

o context sensitive design and aesthetics.

Details the role o the Aesthetics and Enhance

Management Plan Graphic Support in conv

Te context sensitive designs and aesthe

Te methods or coordinating and interawith the AA, the BSHC, and the BSM

Te ormat and distribution o the Reco

Recommendations and Decisions docu

Te ormat o this plan is to rst show requirem

rom the RFP relative to the AEI Plan to be oll

by the Walsh DB plan or that element. Followin

document is the Record o Recommendation

Decisions. Included in the Appendices (on CD

nal graphics, presentation materials, and compil

o AA and BSM comments and recommenda

While one may complement the other, aesthetic

enhancements are not synonymous. For exa

while beauty is a key attribute o aesthetic, it is

one o several connotations associated with enh

ment. Just as there can be aesthetic enhancem

there can also be utilitarian or eective enhancem

that are not beautiul or artistic.


7/38


Within the context o the Project, enhancements in-

clude new structures and acilities, and additions/

modications to existing structures, acilities, land-

scapes, etc.

Within the context o this AEI Plan, the aesthetictreatment o the enhancements (i.e., aesthetic enhance-

ments) is the goal that is to be achieved.

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.1

AESTHETICS AND

ENHANCEMENTS MANAGER

Te DB shall assign an Aesthetics and Enhancements

Manager (AEM) to the Project.

Te Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager shall have

the responsibility to:

A. Develop and execute the Aesthetics and Enhancements

Implementation Plan.

B. Coordinate aesthetics and enhancements issues with

the AA, the BSM in consultation with the BSHC,

and the DBs design and construction teams.

C. Oversee the preparation o 2D or 3D CAD drawings,

renderings, or photo simulations as needed to depict

conceptual and detailed solutions to address aesthetics

and enhancements issues.

Te Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager shall have

experience with developing and directing aesthetic and

enhancement work or transportation projects. Te

qualifcations o the DBs Aesthetics and Enhance-

ments Manager shall be submitted as part o the ech-nical Proposal.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Our AEM, Richard Sutherland, will lead the Walsh

DB program or coordination with the AAs, BSHC,

HPAs, and BSM to nalize th e AEI Plan, culminat-

ing in clear decisions on concepts that best meet the

various needs and desires o the aected communities.

Te AEM will draw on and manage resources rom

throughout the Walsh DB or architecture, engineer-

ing, and graphics expertise. He will communicate the

nal aesthetics and enhancements requirements to the

design team to ensure their proper implementation.

He will accomplish this ormally, by distribution o

design direction memoranda, and inormally, through

his on-going attendance and participation in individual

discipline ocus group meetings. He will ensure that

AEI Plan requirements are implemented thoroughly

and correctly during design and construction.

Te Walsh DBs design quality process includes a

mandatory interdisciplinary review or each and every

design package in each phase o development (con-

ceptual, interim, and RFC). Te review by the AEM

conrms compliance with the applicable requirements

o the AEI Plan and the project scope. Physical evi-

dence o this review and resolution o any comments

must be included in the quality documentation th at isexamined by the Design Quality Manager (DQM) dur-

ing audit o the package beore it is submitted to KYC

or review. Te DQM will not certiy the package as

complete and will not allow the package to advance to

submittal i the AEMs review has not been completed

and documented. Tere are no exceptions to this

quality control process. Tereore, our quality process

ensures the AEMs engagement in all applicable details

o the design and provides the means or his oversight

rom the unique perspective o aesthetic compliance.

Our AEM will have stop-work authority in t he design

and construction process.

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.2

METHODOLOGY

Te DB shall work with the AAs and the BSM

consultation with the BSHC to develop the Aes

and Enhancement Implementation Plan. Te DB

be responsible or working with the BSM to schmeetings with the AAs and, i appropriate, the BS

and shall assist the BSM with identiying appro

acilities and producing appropriate graphics and e

its or the meetings. BSM shall provide a list de

representation o the AAs to the DB upon NP

BSM reserves the right to make changes to the ma

o the AAs during Project development.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te Walsh DB worked with the AAs and B

in consultation with the BSHC, to develop the

AEI Plan. Decisions regarding scheduling me

dates and acilities were made in coordination

the BSM. Te DB attended all AA meeting

the March 27-28 HPA meetings to discuss aest

and enhancements. In addition, meetings were h

2013 with the City o Jeersonville on March 11,

4 and May 13; Jeersonville City Pride on Marc

BSHC on March 19; and Downtown Develop

Corporation on January 28, February 5, March 18,

4, April 19, April 23, May 6 and May 21. In add

Defnitions o

Aesthetics and Enhancements

Aesthetic: Pertaining to the sense o andresponses to the beautiul; artistic; having alove o beauty; in accordance with acceptednotions o good taste.

Enhance: To make greater, as in value, beauty,or efectiveness; augment; to provide withimproved, advanced, or sophisticated features.


8/38


numerous conerence calls and other inormal meet-

ings and discussions were held to develop consensus

or the AEI Plan.

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.2.1

COMMITMENT TO

CONTEXT SENSITIVEDESIGN AND SOLUTIONS

Te DBs design and construction shall be consistent

with the Record o Recommendations and Decisions,

and the DB shall make every eort to conorm to the

ollowing general principles:

A. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to Project needs.

B. Apply exibility inherent in design guidelines.

C. Incorporate aesthetics and enhancements consider-

ations throughout Project development.

D. Create structures and aesthetic designs that enhance

the connections under the highway between urban

neighborhoods/downtown/destinations.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te aesthetics team includes landscape architects,

bridge architects, bridge and roadway designers,

lighting experts, and constructors experienced in

working with urban projects with large numbers

o environmental commitments.

Flexibility was exercised during concept develop-

ment to: minimize verticality o the interchange

components to the extent possible; use o state o the

art techniques to reduce noise such as bridge jointsand pavement designs; and place enhancements

to maximize community appearance to citizens

and visitors alike, such as gateways, landscaping,

and pedestrian acilities. Such exibility will con-

tinue to be implemented throughout design and

construction. One specic example o exibility

was the Walsh DB working with AA members

in Section 1 to shi application o resources rom

Liberty Street landscaping to additional GatewayEnhancements. Another example is Walsh agreeing

to relocate the monuments proposed on the east

side o Main Street (that due to a conict cant

be constructed) to Jackson Street to complete the

Market Street and Jackson Street intersection as a

complete gateway.

Aesthetics enhancements have been applied

throughout the project development in all three

sections to date, and will continue to be applied

throughout construction.

With aesthetic enhancements in landscaping,

textures or walls, and lighting, travel under the

interstate structures will be a more welcoming, sae,

and pleasant experience or all users o t he acility.

All underpasses will receive lighting that will pro-

vide a sae and inviting experience, particularly or

non-motorist users. A two-stage lighting system,

which operates both during the day and night to

maintain appropriate levels o light or users, will

be installed.


PRODUCING AN AESTHETICS

AND ENHANCEMENTS

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Te AEI Plan shall:Establish a plan for presenting

detailed aesthetics options to the AATs and the BSMT

in consultation with the BSHCT for review and discus-

sion. Stakeholder involvement requirements are defned

in Section 9.3 and Chapter 8 of this Project Scope

document. Elements of t he design for which the DBT

shall develop and present options are, at a minimum,

listed below in Table 9-1 Aesthetic Options and other

sections of this Chapter and RFP.

Project

Section 2

Presentation

Requirements

New I-65 Northbound

Ohio River Bridge

wo ully-integratconcepts illustrati(See Section 9.2.1 basic requirement

Color

Finished surace trment (reveals, cham

texture etc.)

Substructure detai

ower/Pier shap

Bridge Railings (oconcept must be o

open railing)

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te towers will be 5-sided, shaped like a bahome plate. Te two concepts were dierent

ower Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom) rom SectiWorkbook AA Meeting #1


9/38


top shapes: pointed (Option 1) or at (Option 2),

as shown on the previous page and on Page 3

(ower Options) o the Section 2 Workbook or

AA Meeting #1 in the appendices. Option 1 was

the consensus choice o the AAs and was recom-

mended by Walsh to the BSM or nal design.

Colors Per the RFP, colors will be gray, lightly

colored elements. Concrete will remain natural

concrete color. Painted elements will match as

closely as possible.

Basic surace treatments will be shown in the graph-

ics; texture is planned to be smooth concrete.

Te BSM determined that a closed barrier would

be used.

Substructure detailing will be as shown in the

tower, anchor, and approach pier graphics. Un-

dersides o bridges will be clean and uncluttered

to the extent possible. In AA Meeting #1, the

DB presented three options or approach pier

shapes as shown to the right and on Page 4 (Ap-

proach Spans: Indiana) o the Section 2 Work-

book or AA Meeting #1 in the appendices.

Option 3 was recommended which was a

round pier with reveals at eye level resembling

the Aesthetic Guidelines option rom 2006.

Also, in AA Meeting #1, the DB showed two an-

chor pier options. Both pier options had hexagonalpiers but one had an arched underside to the cap

while the other was angular as shown on this page

and on Page 2 (Anchor Piers) o the Section 2 Work-

book or AA Meeting #1 in the appendices. Te

AA members supported the arched cap underside.

When the DB was considering comments

the irst AA meeting, it was suggested

since the AA had selected round column

the approach spans, the hexagonal piers

not be a good aesthetic option. Because o

proximity o the anchor piers to the land app

piers, it was decided to take the round col

or the anchor pier back to the AA in me

#2 as an additional option or consideratio

shown below and on Page 6 (Anchor Piers)

Section 3 Workbook or the AA Meeting

the appendices. Te round column, Option

selected.

Approach Spans: IndianaPier Options rom Section2 Workbook AA Meeting#1. Option 1 Hexagonal

(upper le), Option 2 layeredlimestone (upper right) andOption 3 round with reveals

(le).

Anchor Pier options rom Section 2 Workbook AA Meeting #1.

Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

Anchor Pier options rom Section 3 Workbook AA MeeOption 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).


10/38


Project

Section 3

Presentation

Requirements

I-65 rom northend o the New I-65Northbound OhioRiver Bridge andnorth end o the

existing JFK russabutments and US

31 north abutmentsnorth to North o

Stansier Avenue inIndiana (includes

all structures withinthese limits) (Sec-

tion 3)

wo ully integrated con-cepts illustrating:

Color

Finished surace treatments(reveals, chamers, textures,

etc.)

Substructure detailing

Pier shapes

Underside o all struc-tures shall be clean and

uncluttered

Appropriate, connectiveunderpass structures orJeersonville and Clarks-

ville city streets (pedestrian,bike, vehicle)

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

he DB provided two ully integrated con-

cepts illustrating color, inished surace treat-

ments, substructure detailing, pier shapes,

uncluttered undersides o structures, and ap-

propriate, connective underpass structures.

Te rst concept was to use the Aesthetic Design

Guidelines structure details. Te second concept is

to provide an option or an additional pier texture,and multiple surace texture possibilities or walls

and abutments.

All colors are gray, i painted, or natural concrete

color.

Te nished surace treatments are as shown in

pier reveals and wall surace texture options.

Substructure detailing is represented by a variety

o orm liner options as shown below and on page

9 o the Section 3 Workbook or AA Meeting

#1 included in the appendices o this document.

Separate detailing options are shown in sections

o this document relative to gateway treatments.

Te majority o the AA members preerred the

Cut Stone option.

Te only pier shape oered or this project north

o the approach to the Clark Bridge and the

south abutment o the Market Street Bridge were

round. Tere were two texture options or these

piers, one was the Aesthetic Design Guidelines

option with reveals only at eye level and a layered

limestone option that had reveals rom top to bot-

tom o the columns. All pier caps have rounded

noses. Te two options are as shown below and

on page 8 o the Section 3 Workbook or Section3 AA Meeting #1 included in the appendices.

Te majority o AA members preerred O

1, Aesthetic Design Guidelines with reveals

level.

Undersides o structures will be dictated by s

structure type. Tere are two structure type

in this section o the project, steel plate gird

the approach rom the Ohio River Bridge t

south o Market Street and hybrid concrete g

everywhere else. Tere were no box or tub g

specied or use in Section 3 in the RFP. Con

girders will be signicantly more uncluttered

will steel plate girders. Te DB will min

clutter by using the minimum number o b

between girders allowed by design specica

All structures passing under I-65 will be design

provide pedestrian and bicycle movements ex

today. Lighting will be provided to create

pleasant environment or both motorists and

orms o transportation.

Gateway treatments are applied to Court Av

and 10th Street. At Court Avenue, these inclu

gateway enhancements similar to those pro

(and required by the RFP) or Main and MStreets in Louisville. Monuments, sconce lig

and signage are all contributing gateway elemPier options rom Section 1 & S ection 3 Workbooks AA Meet-

ing #1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

Form Liner options rom Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks

AA Meeting #1.


11/38


At the rst AA meeting on March 21, 2013, th ree

options were provided as shown below and to the

right and on pages 2 and 3 o the Section 3 Work-

book rom meeting #1 included in the appendices.

Te AA members were nearly evenly split between

Options 2 and 3. However, nearly all o thos e rec-

ommending Option 2 wanted the option with real

masonry as opposed to the orm liner option pre-

sented. Te DB received letters rom City Pride

and the Mayors Ofce requesting real masonry be

used. Te DB agreed to investigate ways to accom-

plish this within the project budget and had several

meetings and discussions with representatives rom

the City and AA members about this topic. Letters

o response were provided to the City Pride and

the Mayor on April 17, 2013, that included the

increased costs o providing MSE panels with em-

bedded hal brick. Te costs could not be absorbed

by the DB. It was decided by the DB and BSM

to present two options at the second AA Meeting

on April 25, 2013. Te two options, are shown

below and on Page 2 o the Section 3 Workbook

rom AA Meeting #2 included in the appendices.

It was explained explicitly that the Brick/Limestone

option shown in the second meeting was or orm

liner and not real masonry. Again, the majority o

responses rom the AA showed a preerence or the

brick/limestone option but the responses included

comments asking or real masonry. Since this was

not an option, the DB and BSM recommended

the Cut Stone option be taken orward to nal design.

At 10th Street, the DB showed two op-

tions in meeting #1 as shown to the right

and on page 4 o the Section 3 Workboo

AA Meeting #1 included in the append

Te responses were nearly evenly split bet

Option 2, Cut Stone and an option not sh

Te option not shown was a brick/lime

combination similar to gateway brick orm

option at Court Avenue. Again, recomm

tions or the brick/limestone were accomp

by requests or real masonry. As explain

the Court Avenue gateway, the costs were

vided to the City and City Pride and were

to be cost prohibitive or the DB to pro

Te DB and BSM decided to take two op

to AA Meeting #2. Tose options wer

brick/limestone orm liner option and th

Gateways: Court Avenue West rom Section 3 Workbook AA

Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle) and Option 3(bottom).

Gateways: 10th Street rom Section 3 Workbook AA M#1. Option 1- Aesthetic Guidelines option with smooth co

and reveals at eye level (top) and Option 2 - Cut Stone ormtexture on all walls (bottom).

Gateways: Court Avenue rom Section 3 Workbook AA Meeting#2. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

Gateways: Court Avenue East rom Section 3 Workbook AAMeeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle) and Option 3

(bottom).


12/38


Stone option. Te options are as shown below

and on page 3 o the Section 3 Workbook or

AA Meeting #2 included in the appendices.

As with Court Avenue, a majority o the AA

members preerred the brick/limestone option

with real masonry. Te DB and BSM recom-

mended that the Cut Stone option be taken to nal

design, due to the prohibitive cost o real masonry.

Project

Section 1

Presentation

Requirements

I-65 rom south end othe New I-65 North-

bound Ohio RiverBridge and south end othe existing JFK russ tosouth side o River Road(includes all structures

within these limits)(Section 1)

wo ully integratedconcepts illustrating:

Color

Finished surace treat-ments (reveals, cham-

ers, texture, etc.)


Pier shapes

DB shall use box gird-ers or all structureswithin these limits

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Tis section crosses over the Waterront Park just west

o the Lincoln statue in a heavily utilized portion o

the park. Te Walsh DB met the requirements o

the RFP by:

Providing two options, one o which was a round

pier with reveals at eye level (Option 1). Option 2

was a round pier with evenly-spaced reveals rom

top to bottom to mimic layered limestone. Te

options were as shown to the right and on Page

9 (Approach Spans: Kentucky) o the Section 1

Workbook or AA Meeting #1 in the appendices.

he AA recommended a third option, as

shown below, which was round piers with no

reveals to match the existing piers to be salvaged.

Te round pier options were chosen primari

to the three piers to be salvaged rom the ex

JFK Bridge that will be in close proximity t

new piers. Te option selected by the AA ac

does a better job matching the existing pier

providing continuity.

As described in the RFP and the 2006 Aest

Design Guidelines, colors will be light gr

lightly colored. Concrete elements will be n

concrete color and painted elements will ma

closely as possible.

Box girders will be used in this section to pr

a clean and uncluttered underside o the bri

Approach Spans: Kentucky rom Section 1 Workbook AA Meet-ing #1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

Approach Spans: Kentucky round option with no reveals recom-mended by the AA.

Gateways: Court Avenue rom S ection 3 Workbook AA Meeting#2. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).


13/38


Project

Section 1

Presentation

Requirements

I-64 rom east side oWitherspoon Street

bridge west to end oProject (includes all

structures within theselimits)

wo ully-integratedconcepts illustrating:

Color

Finished surace treat-ment (reveals, chamers,

texture etc.)

Pier Shapes and spacing


Underside o all struc-tures shall be clean and

uncluttered

Appropriate, connectiveunderpass structures or

Louisville WaterrontPark access (pedestrian,

bike, vehicle, visual)

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Option 1 in this section adhered to the 2006 Aes-

thetic Guidelines or all piers and walls. Option 2

was a range o orm liner options as shown to the

right and on Pages 13 (Form Liners) and 14 (Form

Liners) o the Section 1 Workbook or AA Meeting

#1 in the appendices. Te AA was asked to provide

comment on which texture was preerred. Te

preerred orm liner will be used at all locations on

the project other than at gateways. Te Cut Stone

option was preerred by the AA.

Colors are as prescribed in the Aesthetic Guidelines

(light gray or lightly colored). Concrete elements

will be natural concrete color and painted elements

will match as closely as possible.

Designs or the underside o structures will vary

rom bridge to bridge, depending on whether

they are concrete I-girders or steel plate girders.In any case, the DB will use cross-rame designs

to minimize clutter and potential pigeon roosting.

he Plan includes an additional bicycle con-

nection rom just south o I-64 overpasses near

the railroad to a new plaza across rom the Big

Four ramp. A new segment o path will be con-

structed rom the end o the existing path north-

ward to connect to River Road as shown below.

Te DB will construct pedestrian plazas at the

intersection o River Road and Witherspoon at two

locations. One location is across rom the Big Four

Bridge and the other is across rom Slugger Field.

Te ollowing graphic illustrates how the nished

plaza will appear at both locations.

Project

Section 1

Presentation

Requirements

I-65 rom south side oRiver Road south to endo Project (includes allstructures within these

limits) (Section 1)

wo ully-integratconcepts illustrati(Structure over M

Street and Market shave box girders

Color

Finished surace trment (reveals, cham

texture etc.)

Pier shapes

Substructure detai

Underside o all strtures shall be clean

uncluttered

Appropriate, conntive underpass str

tures or Louisvillestreets (pedestrian, b

vehicle)

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te DB showed three ully integrated concep

each gateway at Main and Market Streets.

concepts are illustrated in succeeding parag

in this document. At all other locations

options were shown or bridges and walls

rst option was the Aesthetic Design Guid

option with reveals at eye level and the secontion was a selection o orm liner texture op

Form Liner options rom Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks

AA Meeting #1.


14/38


Piers also had two texture options. Colors are as

prescribed in the Aesthetic Guidelines (light gray

or lightly colored). C oncrete elements will be

natural concrete color. Painted elements will match

as closely as possible.

Finished surace treatments were a variety o reveals

and orm liner textures, as shown below, or walls

and piers.

As shown below, two pier options were shown to

the AA in the rst meeting.

Option 1 was the aesthetic design guidelines option

that had reveals at eye level. Te second option was

a series o evenly spaced reveals rom top to bottom

o the columns that simulated layered limestone.

Te AA recommended a third option, shown

below, or round columns with no reveals.

Te DB recommended the round pier column

option with no reveals to the BSM.

Te underside o structures will vary rom bridge

to bridge, depending on whether they are concrete

I-girders or steel plate girders. In any case, the DB

will use cross-rame designs to minimize clutter

and potential pigeon roosting. At Main and Market

Streets, the superstructure will be box girders as

prescribed in the RFP.

Te gateway structures at Main and Market Streets

included three options. Te Aesthetic Guidelines

option is Option 1, a special brick/limestone com-

bination is Option 2 and cut limestone is Option 3,

as shown on the right and the ollowing page and

on Page 2 (Gateways: Market Street) o the Section

1 Workbook or AA Meeting #2 in the appendices.

Form Liner options rom Section 1 & Section 3 WorkbooksAA Meeting #1.

Pier options rom Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks AA Meet-

ing #1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

Gateways: Market Street rom Section 1 Workbook AA M#1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle),

and Option 3 (bottom).

AA recommended option,round columns with no reveals (above).


15/38


Gateways: Main Street Looking East rom Section 1 WorkbookAA Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle),


Gateways: Main Street Looking West rom Section 1 WorkbookAA Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle),


Gateways: Market Street and Jackson Street rom Section 1Workbook AA Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 ( middle),


Te AA recommended a ourth option to be

sidered at the Main and Market Street gate

Te options presented to the DB by the AA

as shown below:

Gateways: Market Street (top), Main Street (middle), andket Street and Jackson Street (bottom).


16/38


Tese options below were presented at the AA

Meeting #2 or consideration.

wo monument options were presented at AA Meet-

ing #2. One had an urn adorning the top (Option 1) and

the other was without any adornments (Option 2) as

shown below. Option 2 was recommended by the DB.

Te AA recommended Option 2 at Market Street,

Option 1 at Main Street, and the Market Street and

Jackson Street option as shown below:

Due to construction constraints, the monuments on

the east side o Main Street cannot be constructed.

Tereore, monuments were added to the west side

o Jackson Street at the Market Street and Jackson

Street Gateway.

Te DB has been asked to look at a unique design

or the wall behind the Vermont American property.

Te DB asked representatives o the developers to

provide concepts or consideration. Te wall will

have a cut stone orm liner texture.

Project

Section 1

Presentation

Requirements

Retaining Walls alongI-65 (or embankment

areas) rom Wither-spoon Drive south toend o Project on the

eastside and westside oInterstate

Options or orm linertexture, illustrated with

photos and physicalsamples. Wall shallbe a minimum o 6

eet high and shall beully integrated into theLandscaping Plan. Wallsshall serve as control oaccess. Consider optionor a transition to ullheight retaining wallsin the areas o street

crossings.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Walls in this section o the project are generally ull

height. In those areas where ull height walls are not

necessary to minimize right o way acquisition, they

transition to a minimum o 6 eet. Te transitions rom

ull height to shorter walls will be a smooth trans

not stepped or terraced. Te base option was the

thetic Guidelines wall with secondary options be

range o orm liner textures as shown on Page 9 o

document. Te AA preerred the Cut Stone orm

texture. Landscaping plans will address areas w

slopes are exposed due to shorter walls.

Project

Section 1

Presentation

Requirements

Retaining Wall alongsouth side o I-64, I-71and associated ramps

(or embankment areas)beginning with thenorth end o the I-

71/I-64 EB ramp bridgeover East WitherspoonStreet, extending east

to the bridges overEast Witherspoon/CSX

Railroad.

Options or orm lintexture, illustrated wi

photos and physicasamples. Wall shallbe a minimum o 6

eet high and shall bully integrated into tLandscaping Plan. Wshall serve as control

access.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te two options were a retaining wall (6 eet high

tion 1 or a ree-standing metal wall at the toe o the

Option 2, as shown on the next page and on Pa

(Aesthetic Access Control) o the Section 1 Work

or AA Meeting #1 in the appendices. Te AA

DB recommended approval o Option 1 to the B

Gateways: Main Street rom Section 1 Workbook AA Meeting#2. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

Gateways: Monuments rom Section 1 Workbook AA Meeting#2. Option 1 (le) and Option 2 (right).

Final Gateway selections: Market Street (top), Main Street(middle) rom Section 1 Workbook AA Meeting #2, and the

Market Street and Jackson Street Option (bottom).

Gateways: Market Street rom Section 1 Workbook AA Meeting#2. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle), and Option 3 (bottom).


17/38


Project

Section 1

Presentation

Requirements

Retaining Wall alongnorth side o I-64 WB(embankment areas),

beginning at the bridgesover East Witherspoon/CSX Railroad and ex-

tending west to the I-64WB Bridge over RiverRoad(area o I-64 WBparalleling River Roadadjacent to Waterront

Park)



eet high and shall beully integrated into theLandscaping Plan. Wallsshall serve as control o

access.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te options and conclusions or this section are the

same as the preceding project section discussion in this

document.

Project

Section 3

Presentation

Requirements

Retaining Walls alongI-65 (or embankmentareas) rom Ohio River

Bridges north abut-ments (New ORB andExisting Kennedy) andUS 31 north abutments

north to end o Project inIndiana.



eet high and shall beully integrated into

the Landscaping Plan.Walls shall serve ascontrol o access.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te two options shown to the Area Adviso ry team were

Option 1, Aesthetic Design Guidelines walls and Op-

tion 2, a range o orm liner textures as shown in this

document on Page 9 and on Pages 9 (Form Liners) and

10 (Form Liners) o the Section 3 Workbook or AA

Meeting #1 in the appendices. Te AA and DB recom-

mended to the BSM that t he Cut Stone option be used.

Project

Section 3

Presentation

Requirements

Retaining Walls alongI-65 over Stansier Ave.

Match existing wall inappearance

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te new walls will be designed to match the appearance

o the existing wall.

Project-Wide Presentation

Requirements

Landscaping Plan Te DB shall providean integrated Land-

scaping Plan. See re-quirements in Section9.2.3. Te plan shall

cover the Project area,except along Main and

Market Streets.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

As part o the echnical Proposal , the DB developed

a Landscaping Plan concept, which was based on the

2006 Landscaping Guidelines developed or Section 1

and modied to meet the overall goals o the project. See

the Walsh DB Plan or Section 9.2.3 in this Aesthetics

and Enhancement Implementation Plan. Landscaping

is accomplished at key locations where aesthetic treat-

ments can:

Enhance local communities.

Create a quality visual experience or visitors to

the community at ingress and egress points to the

interstate network.

Te landscaping plan philosophy is based on experi-

ence on the Watterson Expressway reconstruction

project which was done in the 1990s. Experience

showed that certain types o plants were more likely to

survive long term in the harsh roadway environ

Plants such as shrubs and ornamental trees stru

to survive while larger deciduous and evergreen

survived and are thriving today. Te philosop

the Downtown Crossing landscaping is to mim

surviving elements o the Watterson project and

canopy within areas o right o way large enou

accommodate this type o tree. Both Indian

Kentucky AAs approved this plan and will be re

mended to the BSM or nal approval.


AESTHETICS AND

ENHANCEMENTS

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Te plan shall establish the DBs methodology or

mining public preerence on these options or pres

tion to the AAs and the BSM in consultation wi

BSHC. Te plan shall:

A. Establish the methods or coordinating and int

ing with the AAs and the BSM in consultation

the BSHC. At a minimum, the DBs shall condu

meetings with each AA. Te plan shall also defn

methodology by which the DB shall obtain rom the

Aesthetic Access Control rom Section 1 Workbook AA Meeting#1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).


18/38


and the BSM in consultation with the BSHC a nal

recommendation on each o the detailed aesthetic options.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te Walsh DB, through regular Walsh-KYC Aes-

thetic Focus Group meetings, established a schedule

or meetings with the AAs (Indianas and Kentuckys),

BSM, BSHC, and HPAs (Indianas and Kentuckys),

as itemized and outlined in this document. Once a

dra AEI Plan was approved, the DB presented to the

BSM all graphics intended or the initial set o AA

meetings. Aer approval by the BSM, the next step was

to meet with the AA members, who were provided a

workbook or input into the development o the Record

o Recommendations and Decisions. Te DB coordi-

nated meeting times and dates with the BSM and then

sent the requisite notice o meetings to the AAs. Te

initial meeting was held in Indiana at the Holiday Inn

Riverview and the second meeting at Guthrie-Mayes

ofce on 3rd Street in Louisville.

A meeting with the BSHC was held on March 19, 2013,

to review presentation materials or the initial AA

meetings. No review comments were received and no

ollow-up actions were required. Meetings with the two

preservation advisory teams were held on March 27 and

28, 2013. Again, no comments were received.

Following the rst set o AA meetings on March 21,

2013, the BSHC meeting, and the HPA meetings, a

ollow-up meeting with the BSM was held to develop

actions to prepare or the second set o AA meetings,

scheduled or April 25, 2013. Following the April 25

2013, AA meeting, a meeting was held with the BSM

to discuss ollow-up actions. A ll issues were successully

resolved aer two AA meetings and numerous ormal

and inormal meetings with stakeholder s. KYC pro-

vided input or the nal AEI document at the ollow-up

meeting.

Te draf and nal Record o Recommendations and

Decisions were developed through the use o workbooks

provided to AA members at each meeting. Te 11 x

17 workbooks had aesthetic and enhancements graphics

on the le side o the page and space on the right side

or recording comments, aesthetic preerences, the com-

menters signature, and the date. Te page was perorated

so that the right hal could be removed and returned to

the DB. A second meeting with the BSHC was held

on May 21, 2013. Comments were incorporated into the

nal document. Aer the rst set o AA meetings, a

dra Recommendations and Decisions document, based

on AA workbook input, was presented to the BSM.

A similar approach was ollowed or the second meet-

ing. Te DB met with the BSM on May 16, 2013, to

discuss nal recommendations. Per the RFP, Section 9.1,

Paragraph 4, the BSM shall consult with the BSCH,

as appropriate, to review the recommendations. Te

DB met with both the BSM and BSCH to present

the dra recommendations. Te Walsh DB developed

the nal Recommendations and Decisions document

and presented it to the BSM, or nal approval.

Te nal Record o Recommendations and Decisions

(RR&D) and the Appendix CD include:

Introduction

AA Meeting #1 materials: presentation, workbooks,

worksheets, meeting summaries, RR&D AA #1 with

spreadsheets or Sections 1, 2 and 3

AA Meeting #2 materials: presentation, workbooks,

worksheets, meeting summaries, RR&D AA #2 with

spreadsheets or Section 1 and 3 , each spreadsheet

includes 1 Section 2 issue, anchor piers

Final Record o Recommendations and Decisions

or Sections 1, 2 and 3

Additional supporting inormation

B. Defne the role o the Aesthetics and Enhancements

Manager in identiying areas or elements o the proposed

bridge, roadway, and surroundings that present opp

nities in the development o a visually acceptable d

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te AEM, through the technical proposal proces

veloped an overall approach to aesthetics enhancem

in conjunction with the diverse interdisciplinary

Te DB chose to invest heavily in aesthetics, u

standing the history o the project on both sides o

river. Sections 1 and 2 already had a long histo

public input on aesthetics but Section 3 had no p

input or aesthetics. Te AEM and team member

with representatives o Jeersonville to get eedba

concepts prior to nalizing the technical proposal

gestions were incorporated rom those meetings.

Locations o emphasis were selected in a variety o

to include:

Environmental documents

Historic preservation plans

History o public meetings

Meetings with locals in preparation o the tech

proposal

RFP requirements


19/38


Goals were developed and include:

Maximize benets to local communities

Enhance impression o visitors to the community

by enhancements to ingress and egress points rom

the interstate network

C. Dene the responsibilities and authority the Aesthetics

and Enhancements Manager shall have in overseeing and

reviewing the overall bridge design, design details, ull-scale

mock-ups, samples, and other submittals relating to the

development o a visually acceptable design.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Our AEM will lead the Walsh DB program or coor-

dination with the AAs, BSHC, HPAs, and BSM to

develop the AEI Plan, culminating in clear decisions on

concepts that best meet the various needs and desires o

the aected communities. Te AEM will draw on and

manage resources rom throughout the Walsh DB or

architecture, engineering, and graphics expertise. He

will communicate the nal aesthetics and enhancements

requirements to the design team to ensure their proper

implementation. He will accomplish this ormally, by

distribution o design direction memoranda, and inor-

mally, through his on-going attendance and participation

in individual discipline ocus group meetings. He will

ensure that AEI Plan requirements are implemented

thoroughly and correctly in the design documents.

Our AEM will have stop-work authority in the design and

construction process. Te Walsh DBs design quality

process includes a mandatory interdisciplinary review

on each and every design package in each phase o de-

velopment (conceptual, interim, and RFC). Te review

by the AEM conrms compliance with the applicable

requirements o the AEI Plan and the project scope.

Physical evidence o this review and resolution o any

comments must be included in the quality documenta-

tion that is examined by the Design Quality Manager

(DQM) during audit o the package beore it is submit-

ted to KYC or review. Te DQM will not certiy the

package as complete and will not allow the package to

advance to submittal i the AEMs review has not been

completed and documented. Tis no exceptions aspect

o our quality process ensures the AEMs engagement

in all applicable details o the design and provides the

means or his oversight rom the unique perspective o

aesthetic compliance.

D. Dene the authority o the Aesthetics and Enhance-

ments Manager and the process or which the Aesthetics

and Enhancements Manager shall coordinate the recom-

mendations rom the AAs and the BSM in consultation

with the BSHC with the DBs design and construction

teams.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

See comments to 9.1.1 included herein

E. Establish a schedule or the aorementioned two meet-

ings, and or submittal o the Record o Recommendations

and Decisions document.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te DB worked with the AAs, in consultation with

the BSHC, to develop the AEI plan. Meeting dates are

as ollows:

Meeting with BSM March 8, 2013

BSHC meeting March 19 , 2013

Initial AA meetings March 21, 2013

(all meetings in one day)

HPA meetings March 27-28, 2013

Meeting with BSM April 5, 2013

Final AA meetings April 25, 2013

(all meetings in one day)

Meeting with BSM

to nalize the AEI and RR&D

May 16, 2013

Meeting with BSHC

to nalize the AEI and RR&D

May 21, 2013

Final AEI and RR&D submittal

June 2013

Following the AA meetings and ollow-up mee

with the BSM, the Walsh DB submitted a Reco

Recommendations and Decisions based on comm

rom the AA members and BSM. Included

DB recommendations or adoption o concept

had clear consensus. Items not having clear cons

were taken to the second AA meeting. Te DB

with the BSHC as directed by the BSM.

Te Walsh DB, in addition to the meetings desc

above, met in 2013, with the Downtown Develop

Corporation on January 28, February 5, March 18,

4, April 19, April 23, May 6 and May 13. Mee

with Jeersonville or City Pride occurred on Marc

March 19, April 4 and April 17. Numerous other

and inormal conversations and meetings were h

develop consensus.


20/38


F. Defne the process o producing and submitting the

Record o Recommendations and Decisions document,

including review and approval o the document by the

BSM in consultation with the BSHC, as appropriate.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te nal Record o Recommendations and Decisions

document is being submitted as part o the nal AEI plan.

Te RR&D includes a compilation o signed workbook

sheets rom AA members, a summary spreadsheet o

those comments along with DB recommendations,

workbooks rom the meetings, presentation materials,

and meeting summaries. Te meetings with the BSHC

and HPAs provided an opportunity or the environmen-

tal groups to comment on DB plans or Aesthetics and

Enhancements. No actionable comments were received.

FROM THE RFP: 9.2.2 GENERAL

AESTHETIC AND ENHANCEMENT

REQUIREMENTS

Te DB shall design and construct all aesthetics and

enhancements elements so that the experience o travel-

ers, both on the interstate and city streets, and neighbors

is visually harmonious and orderly. Key points o the

(2006 aesthetic design) guidelines are summarized below:

A. Substantial landscaping and grading to enhance driving

and pedestrian experience and reduce scale/visual impacts

rom long and close range view points.

B. An attractive, uncluttered, under viaduct environment

or pedestrians and bicyclists. Adoption o bufer and tran-

sitional zones between historic districts and interchange

to reduce noise and visual impact

C. Clean, elegant, well-proportioned superstructures,

viaduct piers, and wall structures.

D. Use o uniorm lightly painted elements like superstruc-

tures, railings, light poles, and sign supports, to visually

uniy the interchange.

E. A consistent amily o shapes to be used throughout

the Project.

F. Well-defned, attractive gateway bridges into the

community.

G. Surace streets to be designed as complete streets to

accommodate motorized vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles

or everyday use.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Members o the Walsh DB developed both the original

FEIS alternative and the conceptual plans shown in the

RFP or this project in concert with the basic aesthetic

design guidelines shown above. In act, members o the

team worked with the original author o these guidelines

in their development. Te FEIS alternative was ully

vetted with the BSHC, KHPA, BSM, and a variety o

public and agency stakeholders during its development.

It is recognized that the conceptual plans were developed

with a slightly dierent direction and purpose than the

FEIS alternative but eorts were made to be as consistent

as possible with the Aesthetic Guidelines mentioned

above. Te base option that the Walsh DB proposed

is identical to the original Guidelines option or piers,

walls, and abutments. Te exception is that round shapes

are being used instead o elliptical or ease o construc-

tion and has been presented consistently throughout

the echnical Proposal and all related discussions. Te

second pier option that was required by the RFP is a

variation o the original Guidelines option. Secondar y

wall options were chosen to be o varying textures that

represent materials used within the historic districts. It

was the intent o th e DB to present options to t he AAs

in such a manner as to ensure a consistency o textures

throughout the project that create a harmonious end

product.

FROM THE RFP: HISTORIC

MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

Te DBs AEI Plan describes the DBs approach

veloping the designs or the areas o the Project adjo

historic properties/districts identied in the First Am

MOA dated April 4, 2012. Te AEI Plan also identi

sta that shall be responsible or the planning and e

tion o the display, including at a minimum the ollo

A. An experienced historian with demonstrated pr

experience in the documentation o historic structu

B. An experienced landscape architect with demons

previous experience in the incorporation o histor

ments in the design and construction o highways.

Te key staf identied above shall be used or any P

work that involves incorporation o historic interpret

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te Walsh DBs approach to developing design

areas o the project adjoining historic propertie

as ollows:

Have an option that was already approved b

BSHC and HPAs in Section 1 (i.e., options

on the 2006 Aesthetic Guidelines).

Additional options or vertical walls that m

eatures ound within historic districts su

limestone/brick orm liner combinations an


21/38


option that mimics natural geographic eatures such

as layered limestone were oered or consideration,

based on the guiding principles rom RFP Section

9.2.2 listed herein.

Our team includes experienced cultural historians at

Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRAI) and an experi-

enced landscape architect in Je Grob o Stantec. CR AI

has worked or the KYC or many years and Mr. Grob

has completed many projects o historic signicance

or Stantec.

FROM THE RFP: 9.2.3

LANDSCAPE PLAN

During earlier stages o the LSIORBP, landscaping

guidelines were developed or the Kentucky side o the

Ohio River. Te guidelines were presented in the Land-

scape Design Guidelines and Concepts or the Kennedy

Interchange dated August 2006. See Section 1.9 o this

Project Scope document or obtaining the Reerence

Document. As stated in Section 9.2.2, the DB shall be

responsible or developing similar principles and guide-

lines or the Indiana side o the river along the Green-

way Corridor only with input rom the Indiana AA

and the BSM in consultation with the BSHC.

Te key point o those guidelines and suggestions or

landscaping treatments in the interchange area are sum-

marized below:

A. Reinorce a sense o regional identity and place.

B. Create a quality visual experience or travelers.

C. Improve highway drivability and saety.

D. Provide visual continuity and internally uniy vari-

ous highway components.

E. Integrate the interchange with the local setting.

F. Screen and buer views o the highway rom adjacent

areas, and screen views rom the highway o unattract-

ive urban development.

G. Accentuate scenic vistas.

H. Protect and improve environmental quality including

air and water quality, habitat protection, and erosion

control.

I. Visually and physically extend and connect parks and

green space.

J. Create and reinorce multi-modal connections and

linkages.

K. Reduce roadside maintenance.

L. Contribute to denition o community gateways.

Te preliminary landscaping concept divides the Kenne-

dy Interchange into landscape zones by existing context.

Tese landscape zones and their characteristics are as

ollows:

A. I-64 Segment: Ravine Woodland

a. Recessed highway anked by densely planted

(wooded) side slopes.

b. Plants screen urban areas rom the highway while

buering views o the highway rom adjacent neigh-

borhoods.

B. I-64/I-71 Segment: Braid Bars and Islands

a. Plants and landorms symbolize vegetated gravel

bars and braid bars along rivers and creeks.

b. Plants visually buer multiple lanes o trafc, re-

ducing distraction and improving drivability .

C. I-64/I-65 Conuence: River Bottom ree Groves

a. Canopy o large bottomland trees (sycamores, cot-

tonwoods) across gently rolling grassland .

b. ree canopy buers visual severity o overhead

highway structures.

D. I-65 Segment: Rock Clis and Ledges

a. rees and shrubs along base o highway walls and

abutments.

b. all trees near walls visually buer and mitigate

scale and severity o walls.

Te DB shall use the Schematic Landscape Plan or

I-65 included in the August 2006 Landscaping guide-

lines reerenced above as an example o the type, sc

and density o landscaping required or the Project.

addition, the DB reviewed the Louisville Metro L

Development Code, Chapter 10 Part 3 or urther g

ance on expected landscaping requirements.

Te DB shall use the above guidelines as a starting

point in the development o their AEI Plan and or

meetings with the AAs, BSHC and BSM.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Te Walsh DB utilized the Landscaping Guid

previously prepared by Section 1 landscape arch

in earlier phases o the project as a starting poi

their plan. Material types and philosophies rom

previous plan were incorporated into the plan with

additional concepts such as:

Where do we spend nite resources and g

best bang or the buck? Te Walsh DB de

to place materials in this priority order:

Maximum community benet rom view

enhancement and community integrati

Induce travelers into the community to

a positive rst impression.


22/38


Realizing that maintenance is an issue, how does

that aect the type and location o plants?

Use plant materials and walls along the south

side o River Road to complement the Water-

ront Park.

Provide bike/ped users o Witherspoon Street

and River Road intersections with comortable

places to stop while traversing the area.

Use aesthetic access control retaining walls to

enhance, rather than detract rom the landscape.

Te Walsh DB utilized past experience on local land-

scaping projects to rene the landscaping guidelines . Te

Watterson Expressway landscaping o the early 1990s

was used as a model and successul plant types were

recommended or the Downtown Crossing.

Below and to the right are the recommended concept

graphics or each project section.

Liberty Street Loop.

I-64/I-65/I-71 Stack.

I-64/I-71.

Story Avenue.

River Road.

Court Avenue.

10th Street

Exit 0 NB Ramp.

Stansier Avenue.


23/38


Submitted By: Walsh Construction 100 Witherspoon Street Louisville, KY 40202


Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions

June


24/38


This page let blank intentionally


25/38


Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1

Section 1 - Surace Texture Plan and Aesthetic & Enhancement Treatment Location Plan Map


26/38



Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments

Gateways: Market Street

Gateways: Monuments

Gateways: Market Street and Jackson Street

This concept was developed rom a sketch provided to the DBT by the AAT prior to the rst meeting.

This, and two additional concepts, was provided at the second meeting. The AAT recommended this

option and the DBT recommended approval to the BSMT.

A majority o the AAT members wanted the option to add nials, urns, or some other ar twork to the

monuments at some point in the uture, ater a local group decides what they should look like. The

tops o the monuments will be sloped to provide drainage.

The DBT will not provide or install the elements as part o this project.

The monuments at Jackson Street will match the ones at Market Street. Monuments will be placed

on the west side only on Jackson Street. However, unlike the bridge over Market Street, the barrier

acades on the bridge over Jackson Street will not be enhanced.


27/38



Gateways: Main Street

Gateways: Signage

Approach Spans: Kentucky


This concept was developed rom a sketch provided to the DBT by the AAT prior to the rst meeting.

This, and one additional concept, was provided at the second meeting. The AAT recommended this

option and the DBT recommended approval to the BSMT. Monuments will be placed on the west

side only on Main Street.

During a discussion with the DBT, a large group representing several downtown stakeholder groups

stated that they would undertake this eort. Final decisions will be provided to the DBT by the end

o 2014 and, in concurrence with the KYTC and consultation with the BSHC T, a nal decision will be

made. The DBT has agreed to install the signage as part o the project.

A majority o the AAT members wanted smooth columns with no reveals to match the existing

columns that will be salvaged rom the existing bridge and elt that the reveals presented could be a

uture maintenance issue.

INFORMATION TO COME

FROM A LOCAL COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP

SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR MAIN AND MARKET STREETS


28/38



Piers

Aesthetic Access Control

Plazas


See comments rom the discussion on the Kentucky approach spans on the previous page. The AAT

used similar rationale or recommending smooth columns.

Both the AAT and the KYTC supported the retaining wall concept, but or dierent reasons. The

AAT members preerred the retaining walls to provide additional space between the sidewalk and

the wall; however, or engineering reasons the wall will not be located urther rom the sidewalk to

create more space. KYTC was concerned about long-term maintenance behind the wall and a ence.

The walls will have a cut stone appearance.

The AAT members supported the construction o plazas at two locations: across Witherspoon Street

rom Slugger Field and near the Witherspoon Street and River Road Intersection near the Big Four

Bridge. Final design will work out details o materials, bike racks, etc.

l d f d d


29/38



Form Liners

Landscaping Liberty Street

Landscaping I-64/I-65/I-71 Stack


The AAT preerred the Cut Stone option. The DBT recommends approval.

The AAT wanted to simpliy the original concept that was presented, which included artwork, to

include only trees and grass. The design will include canopy trees and ornamentals but no hardscape

treatments.

The AAT supported the concept o using canopy trees due to long term maintenance concerns o

using shrubs or ornamentals. A nal detailed landscape plan will be presented to the BSMT prior to

completion o design.

Fi l R d f R d ti d D i i S ti 1


30/38



Landscaping I-64/I-71 Braids and Bars

Landscaping Story Avenue

Landscaping River Road








The concept o using similar types and locations o tree species located within Waterront Park near

this River Road location was supported by the AAT.

Fi l R d f R d ti d D i i S ti 1


31/38



Bicycle & Pedestrian Enhancement


This concept was supported by the AAT and will connect an existing multi-use path south o the I-64

corridor to the new plaza on River Road.



32/38



Anchor Piers

Tower Options

Approach Spans: Indiana


Both AATs supported the concept shown. It has an arched underside to the pier cap and round pier

columns.

Both AATs supported the pointed tower top option.

Both AATs supported the option o round columns with reveals at eye level, similar to the concepts

developed or the Aesthetic Design Guidelines or Section 1 in 2006.



33/38



Aesthetic Lighting


Both AATs supported this concept but asked or consideration o placement o lights or

maintenance purposes. The lighting will need to adjust to accommodate airings needed to mitigate

wind impact. Also, the lighting will need to be approved by the U. S. Coast Guard.



34/38



Section 3 - Surace Texture Plan Map

N.T.S.

Retaining walls 9, 10, 18, 19, 21,

34A, 34B to match existing panel

style (Smooth Puzzle Piece)

Retaining walls 38 & 39 (outside o Clark Memorial

Bridge) to be partial reused limestone acade, partial

limestone block orm liner (similar to existing limestone

appearance) : locations to be determined by Bi-StateManagement Team

All other retaining walls to be

Cut Stone



35/38



Gateways: Court Avenue East

Gateways: 10th Street

Gateway Signage - Court Avenue


The DBT recommends this option pending a decision by others about additional unding or urther

enhancements. A decision on lights atop the monuments is also pending. An amendment can be

made to address any uture changes that may occur.

The DBT recommends this option pending actions by others to nd additional unding or urther

enhancements. I changes occur at a uture date, an amendment can be made to this document.

The signage option refects the work o a local committee and AAT comments.



36/38



City Signage

Piers

Form Liners


The concept shown represents the work o a local committee and AAT comments. The base material

will refect a nal decision on gateway treatments at Court Avenue.

The AAT preers this option round with reveals at eye level. The DBT recommends approval.

The DBT recommends Cut Stone, to be used at locations illustrated on the Section 3 - Surace

Texture Plan Map.



37/38



Landscaping: Court Avenue

Landscaping: 10th Street

Landscaping: Stansier


The DBT recommends the concept shown, which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to

use canopy trees in lieu o shrubs and ragile o rnamentals due to long term maintenance concerns.

The DBT will work with local groups during nal design to address concerns and provide space or

local planting eorts. A nal detailed landscaping plan will be presented to the BSMT prior to the


The DBT recommends the concept shown which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to use

canopy trees in lieu o shrubs and ragile ornamentals due to long term maintenance concerns. The

DBT will work with local groups during nal design to address concerns and provide space or local

planting eorts.

The DBT recommends the concept shown, which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to



local planting eorts. It is possible a noise barrier adjacent to the I-65 SB lanes could be constructed

in the uture. That decision will be made ater construction.



38/38



Landscaping: Exit 0 NB RampThe DBT recommends the concept shown, which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to



local planting eorts.

downtown bridge aesthetics plan

Documents