You are on page 1of 38

LOUISVILLE-SOUTHERN INDIANA OHIO RIVER BRIDGES PROJECT DOWNTOWN CROSSING

AESTHETICS & ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN & RECORD OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS

June 2013

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

Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation Plan March 7, 2013

001Record of Recommendation and Decisions Covers.indd 1

6/25/2013 2:39:49 PM

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 Enhancements Implementation 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 Texture Plan and Aesthetic & Enhancement Treatment Location Plan Map .........................................................................................24 • Section 1 .............................................................................................................................25 • Section 2 .............................................................................................................................31 • Section 3 - Surface Texture Plan Map .............................................................................33 • Section 3 .............................................................................................................................34 Appendix ......................................................................................................... see enclosed CD

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

1

Introduction
DOWNTOWN CROSSING
AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND RECORD OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS This Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation Plan (AEI) and Record of Recommendations and Decisions (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 Team (DBT). The process was outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Downtown Crossing as advertised by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). Recommendations have been made in collaboration with the Area Advisory Teams (AATs) and Bi-State Management Team (BSMT), in consultation with the Bi-State Historic Consultation Team (BSHCT). The Walsh DBT not only met the basic requirements of the RFP but exceeded those requirements by holding numerous additional meetings with Area Advisory Team members and interested groups to develop consensus on solutions. Additionally, meetings were held with the Historic Preservation Advisory Teams from both states on March 27-28, 2013. The extra meetings and consensus building with all stakeholders resulted in a better overall product. This document includes the Final AEI and the Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions. The attached Appendix CD includes the presentation slides, workbooks, signed workbook sheets from the AAT members, meeting summaries, and a spreadsheet that incorporated all comments and DBT recommendations from each Area Advisory Team 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.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

2

LOUISVILLE-SOUTHERN INDIANA OHIO RIVER BRIDGES PROJECT DOWNTOWN CROSSING

AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Submitted By: Walsh Construction 100 Witherspoon Street Louisville, KY 40202 June 2013

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

3

This page left blank intentionally

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

4

AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION The Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation Plan represents the Walsh DBT plan to work with the BSMT, BSHCT, and the Area Advisory Teams to develop an informed, final AEI Plan that identifies all aesthetic and enhancement requirements to be included in the Downtown Crossing project. Proposed treatments presented herein are sensitive to the Historic Preservations Plans (HPPs) that have been developed for the historic properties and districts adjacent to the Project, as presented in the 2012 First Amended MOA (FAMOA). The HPPs will be updated by the BSMT in consultation with the BSHCT. This Plan also addresses other commitments applicable to aesthetics 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). The commitments recorded in the above-referenced environmental documentation are collectively referred to as “the Project Commitments.” In developing this AEI Plan, Walsh DBT has considered 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 for the Kennedy Interchange”, dated August 2006. This AEI Plan includes a Landscaping Plan that (per RFP Section 9.2.3) identifies principles and guidelines for Indiana’s Greenway Corridor that are similar to those developed in 2006 for the Kennedy Interchange. Also, as per RFP Section 9.2.2, a set of aesthetic guidelines and principles were developed. This AEI Plan describes the Walsh DBT’s approach to incorporating aesthetics and enhancements throughout Project development. The Walsh DBT commits to applying the requirements of the final AEI Plan to the design and construction of all permanent structures including, but not limited to, bridges, retaining walls, barriers, lighting, sidewalk/bicycle paths, landscape enhancements, and drainage facilities (per RFP Section 9.1). The DBT will conduct all work necessary to meet the requirements for aesthetics and enhancements management, including: A. Provision of an Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager (AEM) B. Provision of Aesthetics and Enhancements Graphic Support C. Development and execution of an Aesthetics and Enhancements Implementation Plan D. Presentation to and collaboration with the Area Advisory Teams, inclusive of key stakeholders E. Record of Recommendations and Decisions This AEI Plan is based on the Aesthetics and Enhancements Management Plan (AEM Plan) submitted as part of the Walsh DBT Technical Proposal in response to the RFP. This AEI Plan:
„„ Defines the responsibilities and authority of the „„ Details the role of the Aesthetics and Enhancements

Management Plan Graphic Support in conveying: • The context sensitive designs and aesthetics. • The methods for coordinating and interacting with the AAT, the BSHCT, and the BSMT. • The format and distribution of the “Record of Recommendations and Decisions” document. The format of this plan is to first show requirements from the RFP relative to the AEI Plan to be followed by the Walsh DBT plan for that element. Following this document is the “Record of Recommendations and Decisions”. Included in the Appendices (on CD) are final graphics, presentation materials, and compilations of AAT and BSMT comments and recommendations. While one may complement the other, “aesthetics” and “enhancements” are not synonymous. For example, while beauty is a key attribute of “aesthetic,” it is only one of several connotations associated with “enhancement.” Just as there can be aesthetic enhancements, there can also be utilitarian or effective enhancements that are not beautiful or artistic.

Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager.
„„ Describes the range of options/alternatives (nar-

rative discussion and/or sketches/graphics/renderings) that the DBT will present to the AAT and the BSMT, in consultation with the BSHCT.
„„ Provides more specific details and elaborates on the

qualifications, responsibilities, and authority of the Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager to ensure that the finished project achieves the expected level of context sensitive design and aesthetics.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

5

A. Develop and execute the Aesthetics and Enhancements

design team to ensure their proper implementation. He will accomplish this formally, by distribution of design direction memoranda, and informally, through his on-going attendance and participation in individual discipline focus group meetings. He will ensure that AEI Plan requirements are implemented thoroughly and correctly during design and construction. The Walsh DBT’s design quality process includes a mandatory interdisciplinary review for each and every design package in each phase of development (conceptual, interim, and RFC). The review by the AEM confirms compliance with the applicable requirements of the AEI Plan and the project scope. Physical evidence of this review and resolution of any comments must be included in the quality documentation that is examined by the Design Quality Manager (DQM) during audit of the package before it is submitted to KYTC for review. The DQM will not certify the package as complete and will not allow the package to advance to submittal if the AEM’s review has not been completed and documented. There are “no exceptions” to this quality control process. Therefore, our quality process ensures the AEM’s engagement in all applicable details of the design and provides the means for his oversight from the unique perspective of aesthetic compliance. Our AEM will have stop-work authority in the design and construction process.

Definitions of Aesthetics and Enhancements
Aesthetic: Pertaining to the sense of and responses to the beautiful; artistic; having a love of beauty; in accordance with accepted notions of good taste. Enhance: To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment; to provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features.

Implementation Plan. B. Coordinate aesthetics and enhancements issues with the AAT, the BSMT in consultation with the BSHCT, and the DBT’s design and construction teams. C. Oversee the preparation of 2D or 3D CAD drawings, renderings, or photo simulations as needed to depict conceptual and detailed solutions to address aesthetics and enhancements issues.

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.2 METHODOLOGY
The DBT shall work with the AATs and the BSMT in consultation with the BSHCT to develop the Aesthetic and Enhancement Implementation Plan. The DBT shall be responsible for working with the BSMT to schedule meetings with the AATs and, if appropriate, the BSHCT and shall assist the BSMT with identifying appropriate facilities and producing appropriate graphics and exhibits for the meetings. BSMT shall provide a list defining representation of the AATs to the DBT upon NTP. The BSMT reserves the right to make changes to the makeup of the AATs during Project development. THE WALSH DBT PLAN: The Walsh DBT worked with the AATs and BSMT, in consultation with the BSHCT, to develop the final AEI Plan. Decisions regarding scheduling meeting dates and facilities were made in coordination with the BSMT. The DBT attended all AAT meetings and the March 27-28 HPAT meetings to discuss aesthetics and enhancements. In addition, meetings were held in 2013 with the City of Jeffersonville on March 11, April 4 and May 13; Jeffersonville City Pride on March 19; BSHCT on March 19; and Downtown Development Corporation on January 28, February 5, March 18, April 4, April 19, April 23, May 6 and May 21. In addition,

Within the context of the Project, enhancements include new structures and facilities, and additions/ modifications to existing structures, facilities, landscapes, etc. Within the context of this AEI Plan, the aesthetic treatment of the enhancements (i.e., aesthetic enhancements) is the goal that is to be achieved.

The Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager shall have experience with developing and directing aesthetic and enhancement work for transportation projects. The qualifications of the DBT’s Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager shall be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal. THE WALSH DBT PLAN: Our AEM, Richard Sutherland, will lead the Walsh DBT program for coordination with the AATs, BSHCT, HPATs, and BSMT to finalize the AEI Plan, culminating in clear decisions on concepts that best meet the various needs and desires of the affected communities. The AEM will draw on and manage resources from throughout the Walsh DBT for architecture, engineering, and graphics expertise. He will communicate the final aesthetics and enhancements requirements to the

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.1 AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS MANAGER
The DBT shall assign an Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager (AEM) to the Project. The Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager shall have the responsibility to:

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

6

numerous conference calls and other informal meetings and discussions were held to develop consensus for the AEI Plan.

working with urban projects with large numbers of environmental commitments.
„„ Flexibility was exercised during concept develop-

„„ With aesthetic enhancements in landscaping,

textures for walls, and lighting, travel under the interstate structures will be a more welcoming, safe, and pleasant experience for all users of the facility. All underpasses will receive lighting that will provide a safe and inviting experience, particularly for non-motorist users. A two-stage lighting system, which operates both during the day and night to maintain appropriate levels of light for users, will be installed.

Project Section 2 New I-65 Northbound Ohio River Bridge

Presentation Requirements Two fully-integrated concepts illustrating (See Section 9.2.1 for basic requirements): Color Finished surface treatment (reveals, chamfers, texture etc.) Substructure detailing Tower/Pier shapes Bridge Railings (one concept must be for an open railing)

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.2.1 COMMITMENT TO CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN AND SOLUTIONS
The DBT’s design and construction shall be consistent with the Record of Recommendations and Decisions, and the DBT shall make every effort to conform to the following general principles: A. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to Project needs. B. Apply flexibility inherent in design guidelines. C. Incorporate aesthetics and enhancements considerations 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:
„„ The aesthetics team includes landscape architects,

ment to: minimize verticality of the interchange components to the extent possible; use of state of the art techniques to reduce noise such as bridge joints and pavement designs; and place enhancements to maximize community appearance to citizens and visitors alike, such as gateways, landscaping, and pedestrian facilities. Such flexibility will continue to be implemented throughout design and construction. One specific example of flexibility was the Walsh DBT working with AAT members in Section 1 to shift application of resources from Liberty Street landscaping to additional Gateway Enhancements. Another example is Walsh agreeing to relocate the monuments proposed on the east side of Main Street (that due to a conflict can’t be constructed) to Jackson Street to complete the Market Street and Jackson Street intersection as a complete gateway.
„„ Aesthetics enhancements have been applied

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.2.2 PRODUCING AN AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The 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 discussion. Stakeholder involvement requirements are defined in Section 9.3 and Chapter 8 of this Project Scope document. Elements of the 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.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:
„„ The towers will be 5-sided, shaped like a baseball

home plate. The two concepts were different tower

throughout the project development in all three sections to date, and will continue to be applied throughout construction.

bridge architects, bridge and roadway designers, lighting experts, and constructors experienced in

Tower Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom) from Section 2 Workbook AAT Meeting #1 AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions
7

top shapes: pointed (Option 1) or flat (Option 2), as shown on the previous page and on Page 3 (Tower Options) of the Section 2 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 in the appendices. Option 1 was the consensus choice of the AATs and was recommended by Walsh to the BSMT for final design.
„„ Colors – Per the RFP, colors will be gray, lightly

and on Page 2 (Anchor Piers) of the Section 2 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 in the appendices. The AAT members supported the arched cap underside. When the DBT was considering comments from the first AAT meeting, it was suggested that, since the AAT had selected round columns for the approach spans, the hexagonal piers may not be a good aesthetic option. Because of the proximity of the anchor piers to the land approach piers, it was decided to take the round columns for the anchor pier back to the AAT in meeting #2 as an additional option for consideration, as shown below and on Page 6 (Anchor Piers) of the
Approach Spans: Indiana Pier Options from Section 2 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 Hexagonal (upper left), Option 2 layered limestone (upper right) and Option 3 round with reveals (left).

colored elements. Concrete will remain natural concrete color. Painted elements will match as closely as possible.
„„ Basic surface treatments will be shown in the graph-

Section 3 Workbook for the AAT Meeting #2 in the appendices. The round column, Option 1 was selected.

ics; texture is planned to be smooth concrete.
„„ The BSMT determined that a closed barrier would

be used.
„„ Substructure detailing will be as shown in the

tower, anchor, and approach pier graphics. Undersides of bridges will be clean and uncluttered to the extent possible. In AAT Meeting #1, the DBT presented three options for approach pier shapes as shown to the right and on Page 4 (Approach Spans: Indiana) of the Section 2 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 in the appendices. the Aesthetic Guidelines option from 2006. Also, in AAT Meeting #1, the DBT showed two anchor pier options. Both pier options had hexagonal piers but one had an arched underside to the cap while the other was angular as shown on this page
Anchor Pier options from Section 2 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom). Anchor Pier options from Section 3 Workbook AAT Meeting #2. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

Option 3 was recommended which was a round pier with reveals at eye level resembling

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

8

„„ All colors are gray, if painted, or natural concrete

Separate detailing options are shown in sections of this document relative to gateway treatments.

The majority of AAT members preferred Option 1, Aesthetic Design Guidelines with reveals at eye level.

Project Section 3

Presentation Requirements

color.
„„ The finished surface treatments are as shown in

I-65 from north Two fully integrated conend of the New I-65 cepts illustrating: Northbound Ohio River Bridge and Color north end of the existing JFK Truss Finished surface treatments abutments and US (reveals, chamfers, textures, 31 north abutments etc.) north to North of Stansifer Avenue in Substructure detailing Indiana (includes all structures within Pier shapes these limits) (Section 3) Underside of all structures shall be clean and uncluttered Appropriate, connective underpass structures for Jeffersonville and Clarksville city streets (pedestrian, bike, vehicle) THE WALSH DBT PLAN:
„„ The DBT provided two fully integrated con-

pier reveals and wall surface texture options.
„„ Substructure detailing is represented by a variety

The majority of the AAT members preferred the Cut Stone option.
„„ The only pier shape offered for this project north

„„ Undersides of structures will be dictated by super-

structure type. There are two structure types used in this section of the project, steel plate girders in the approach from the Ohio River Bridge to just south of Market Street and hybrid concrete girders everywhere else. There were no box or tub girders specified for use in Section 3 in the RFP. Concrete girders will be significantly more uncluttered than will steel plate girders. The DBT will minimize

of form liner options as shown below and on page 9 of the Section 3 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 included in the appendices of this document.

of the approach to the Clark Bridge and the south abutment of the Market Street Bridge were round. There were two texture options for these piers, one was the Aesthetic Design Guidelines option with reveals only at eye level and a layered limestone option that had reveals from top to bottom of the columns. All pier caps have rounded noses. The two options are as shown below and on page 8 of the Section 3 Workbook for Section 3 AAT Meeting #1 included in the appendices.

clutter by using the minimum number of braces between girders allowed by design specifications.
„„ All structures passing under I-65 will be designed to

provide pedestrian and bicycle movements existing today. Lighting will be provided to create a safe, pleasant environment for both motorists and other forms of transportation.
„„ Gateway treatments are applied to Court Avenue

cepts illustrating color, finished surface treatments, substructure detailing, pier shapes, uncluttered undersides of structures, and appropriate, connective underpass structures. The first concept was to use the Aesthetic Design Guidelines structure details. The second concept is to provide an option for an additional pier texture, and multiple surface texture possibilities for walls and abutments.
Form Liner options from Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks AAT Meeting #1. Pier options from Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

and 10th Street. At Court Avenue, these include full gateway enhancements similar to those proposed (and required by the RFP) for Main and Market Streets in Louisville. Monuments, sconce lighting, and signage are all contributing gateway elements.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

9

At the first AAT meeting on March 21, 2013, three options were provided as shown below and to the right and on pages 2 and 3 of the Section 3 Workbook from meeting #1 included in the appendices. The AAT members were nearly evenly split between Options 2 and 3. However, nearly all of those recommending Option 2 wanted the option with real masonry as opposed to the form liner option presented. The DBT received letters from City Pride

below and on Page 2 of the Section 3 Workbook from AAT Meeting #2 included in the appendices. It was explained explicitly that the Brick/Limestone option shown in the second meeting was for form

and on page 4 of the Section 3 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 included in the appendices.

„„ „„ „„

Gateways: Court Avenue West from Section 3 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle) and Option 3 (bottom).

Gateways: 10th Street from Section 3 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1- Aesthetic Guidelines option with smooth concrete and reveals at eye level (top) and Option 2 - Cut Stone form liner texture on all walls (bottom).

The responses were nearly evenly split between
Gateways: Court Avenue from Section 3 Workbook AAT Meeting #2. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

and the Mayor’s Office requesting real masonry be used. The DBT agreed to investigate ways to accomplish this within the project budget and had several meetings and discussions with representatives from the City and AAT members about this topic. Letters of response were provided to the City Pride and the Mayor on April 17, 2013, that included the increased costs of providing MSE panels with embedded half brick. The costs could not be absorbed by the DBT. It was decided by the DBT and BSMT
Gateways: Court Avenue East from Section 3 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle) and Option 3 (bottom).

Option 2, Cut Stone and an option not shown. The option not shown was a brick/limestone combination similar to gateway brick form liner

liner and not real masonry. Again, the majority of responses from the AAT showed a preference for the brick/limestone option but the responses included comments asking for real masonry. Since this was not an option, the DBT and BSMT recommended the Cut Stone option be taken forward to final design.

option at Court Avenue. Again, recommendations for the brick/limestone were accompanied by requests for real masonry. As explained for the Court Avenue gateway, the costs were provided to the City and City Pride and were noted to be cost prohibitive for the DBT to provide. The DBT and BSMT decided to take two options

to present two options at the second AAT Meeting on April 25, 2013. The two options, are shown

At 10th Street, the DBT showed two options in meeting #1 as shown to the right

to AAT Meeting #2. Those options were the brick/limestone form liner option and the Cut

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

10

Stone option. The options are as shown below and on page 3 of the Section 3 Workbook for

Project Section 1 I-65 from south end of the New I-65 Northbound Ohio River Bridge and south end of the existing JFK Truss to south side of River Road (includes all structures within these limits) (Section 1)

Presentation Requirements Two fully integrated concepts illustrating: Color Finished surface treatments (reveals, chamfers, texture, etc.) Substructure detailing Pier shapes DBT shall use box girders for all structures within these limits

The round pier options were chosen primarily due to the three piers to be salvaged from the existing JFK Bridge that will be in close proximity to the new piers. The option selected by the AAT actually does a better job matching the existing piers and providing continuity.
„„ As described in the RFP and the 2006 Aesthetic

Design Guidelines, colors will be light gray or ‘lightly colored’. Concrete elements will be natural concrete color and painted elements will match as closely as possible.
„„ Box girders will be used in this section to provide

THE WALSH DBT PLAN: This section crosses over the Waterfront Park just west of the Lincoln statue in a heavily utilized portion of the park. The Walsh DBT met the requirements of
Gateways: Court Avenue from Section 3 Workbook AAT Meeting #2. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom). Approach Spans: Kentucky from Section 1 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

a clean and uncluttered underside of the bridges.

The AAT recommended a third option, as shown below, which was round piers with no reveals to match the existing piers to be salvaged.

the RFP by:
„„ Providing two options, one of which was a round

AAT Meeting #2 included in the appendices. As with Court Avenue, a majority of the AAT members preferred the brick/limestone option with real masonry. The DBT and BSMT recommended that the Cut Stone option be taken to final design, due to the prohibitive cost of real masonry.

pier with reveals at eye level (Option 1). Option 2 was a round pier with evenly-spaced reveals from top to bottom to mimic layered limestone. The options were as shown to the right and on Page 9 (Approach Spans: Kentucky) of the Section 1 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 in the appendices.

Approach Spans: Kentucky round option with no reveals recommended by the AAT.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

11

Project Section 1 I-64 from east side of Witherspoon Street bridge west to end of Project (includes all structures within these limits)

Presentation Requirements Two fully-integrated concepts illustrating: Color Finished surface treatment (reveals, chamfers, texture etc.) Pier Shapes and spacing Substructure detailing Underside of all structures shall be clean and uncluttered Appropriate, connective underpass structures for Louisville Waterfront Park access (pedestrian, bike, vehicle, visual)

„„ The Plan includes an additional bicycle con-

nection from just south of I-64 overpasses near the railroad to a new plaza across from the Big Four ramp. A new segment of path will be constructed from the end of the existing path northward to connect to River Road as shown below.

Project Section 1 I-65 from south side of River Road south to end of Project (includes all structures within these limits) (Section 1)

Presentation Requirements Two fully-integrated concepts illustrating (Structure over Main Street and Market shall have box girders): Color Finished surface treatment (reveals, chamfers, texture etc.) Pier shapes Substructure detailing Underside of all structures shall be clean and uncluttered Appropriate, connective underpass structures for Louisville city streets (pedestrian, bike, vehicle)

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:
„„ Option 1 in this section adhered to the 2006 AesForm Liner options from Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks AAT Meeting #1.

The DBT will construct pedestrian plazas at the intersection of River Road and Witherspoon at two locations. One location is across from the Big Four Bridge and the other is across from Slugger Field. The following graphic illustrates how the finished plaza will appear at both locations.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:
„„ The DBT showed three fully integrated concepts for

thetic Guidelines for all piers and walls. Option 2 was a range of form liner options as shown to the right and on Pages 13 (Form Liners) and 14 (Form Liners) of the Section 1 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 in the appendices. The AAT was asked to provide comment on which texture was preferred. The preferred form liner will be used at all locations on the project other than at gateways. The Cut Stone option was preferred by the AAT.

„„ 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 for the underside of structures will vary

each gateway at Main and Market Streets. These concepts are illustrated in succeeding paragraphs in this document. At all other locations, two options were shown for bridges and walls. The first option was the Aesthetic Design Guidelines option with reveals at eye level and the second option was a selection of form liner texture options.

from bridge to bridge, depending on whether they are concrete I-girders or steel plate girders. In any case, the DBT will use cross-frame designs to minimize clutter and potential pigeon roosting.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

12

Piers also had two texture options. Colors are as prescribed in the Aesthetic Guidelines (light gray or ‘lightly colored’). Concrete elements will be natural concrete color. Painted elements will match as closely as possible.
„„ Finished surface treatments were a variety of reveals

„„ As shown below, two pier options were shown to

„„ The DBT recommended the round pier column

the AAT in the first meeting.

option with no reveals to the BSMT.
„„ The underside of structures will vary from bridge

to bridge, depending on whether they are concrete I-girders or steel plate girders. In any case, the DBT will use cross-frame designs to minimize clutter and potential pigeon roosting. At Main and Market Streets, the superstructure will be box girders as prescribed in the RFP.
„„ The gateway structures at Main and Market Streets

and form liner textures, as shown below, for walls and piers.

included three options. The Aesthetic Guidelines
Pier options from Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top) and Option 2 (bottom).

option is Option 1, a special brick/limestone combination is Option 2 and cut limestone is Option 3, as shown on the right and the following page and on Page 2 (Gateways: Market Street) of the Section 1 Workbook for AAT Meeting #2 in the appendices.

„„ Option 1 was the aesthetic design guidelines option

that had reveals at eye level. The second option was a series of evenly spaced reveals from top to bottom of the columns that simulated layered limestone. The AAT recommended a third option, shown below, for round columns with no reveals.

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

Form Liner options from Section 1 & Section 3 Workbooks AAT Meeting #1. AAT recommended option, round columns with no reveals (above).

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

13

The AAT recommended a fourth option to be considered at the Main and Market Street gateways. The options presented to the DBT by the AAT are as shown below:
MARKET STREET CROSSING

MAIN STREET CROSSING

JEFFERSON / JACKSON CROSSING

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

Gateways: Main Street Looking East from Section 1 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle), and Option 3 (bottom).

Gateways: Main Street Looking West from Section 1 Workbook AAT Meeting #1. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle), and Option 3 (bottom).

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

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

14

„„ These options below were presented at the AAT

„„ Two monument options were presented at AAT Meet-

„„ Due to construction constraints, the monuments on

full height to shorter walls will be a smooth transition, not stepped or terraced. The base option was the Aes-

Meeting #2 for consideration.

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 DBT.

the east side of Main Street cannot be constructed.

Therefore, monuments were added to the west side thetic Guidelines wall with secondary options being a of Jackson Street at the Market Street and Jackson Street Gateway.
„„ The DBT has been asked to look at a unique design

range of form liner textures as shown on Page 9 of this document. The AAT preferred the Cut Stone form liner texture. Landscaping plans will address areas where slopes are exposed due to shorter walls.

for the wall behind the Vermont American property. The DBT asked representatives of the developers to
Gateways: Monuments from Section 1 Workbook AAT Meeting #2. Option 1 (left) and Option 2 (right).

provide concepts for consideration. The wall will have a cut stone form liner texture. Project Section 1 Presentation Requirements Options for form liner texture, illustrated with photos and physical samples. Wall shall be a minimum of 6 feet high and shall be fully integrated into the Landscaping Plan. Walls shall serve as control of access. Consider option for a transition to full height retaining walls in the areas of street crossings.

Project Section 1 Retaining Wall along south side of I-64, I-71 and associated ramps (for embankment areas) beginning with the north end of the I71/I-64 EB ramp bridge over East Witherspoon Street, extending east to the bridges over East Witherspoon/CSX Railroad.

Presentation Requirements Options for form liner texture, illustrated with photos and physical samples. Wall shall be a minimum of 6 feet high and shall be fully integrated into the Landscaping Plan. Walls shall serve as control of access.

The AAT recommended Option 2 at Market Street, Option 1 at Main Street, and the Market Street and Jackson Street option as shown below:
Gateways: Market Street from Section 1 Workbook AAT Meeting #2. Option 1 (top), Option 2 (middle), and Option 3 (bottom).

„„

„„

Retaining Walls along I-65 (for embankment areas) from Witherspoon Drive south to end of Project on the eastside and westside of Interstate

THE WALSH DBT PLAN: The two options were a retaining wall (6 feet high) Option 1 or a free-standing metal wall at the toe of the slope Option 2, as shown on the next page and on Page 11 (Aesthetic Access Control) of the Section 1 Workbook for AAT Meeting #1 in the appendices. The AAT and DBT recommended approval of Option 1 to the BSMT.

„„ „„ „„ „„

THE WALSH DBT PLAN: Walls in this section of the project are generally full height. In those areas where full height walls are not

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

„„ necessary to minimize right of way acquisition, they
Final Gateway selections: Market Street (top), Main Street (middle) from Section 1 Workbook AAT Meeting #2, and the „„ Market Street and Jackson Street Option (bottom).

transition to a minimum of 6 feet. The transitions from

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

15

Project Section 3

Presentation Requirements

Project-Wide

Presentation Requirements

survive long term in the harsh roadway environment. Plants such as shrubs and ornamental trees struggled to survive while larger deciduous and evergreen trees survived and are thriving today. The philosophy of the Downtown Crossing landscaping is to mimic the surviving elements of the Watterson project and create canopy within areas of right of way large enough to accommodate this type of tree. Both Indiana and Kentucky AATs approved this plan and will be recommended to the BSMT for final approval.

Retaining Walls along Options for form liner I-65 (for embankment texture, illustrated with areas) from Ohio River photos and physical Bridges north abutsamples. Wall shall ments (New ORB and be a minimum of 6 Existing Kennedy) and feet high and shall be US 31 north abutments fully integrated into north to end of Project in the Landscaping Plan. Indiana. Walls shall serve as control of access. THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

Landscaping Plan

The DBT shall provide an integrated Landscaping Plan. See requirements in Section 9.2.3. The plan shall cover the Project area, except along Main and Market Streets.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN: As part of the Technical Proposal , the DBT developed

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

The two options shown to the Area Advisory team were a Landscaping Plan concept, which was based on the Option 1, Aesthetic Design Guidelines walls and Op- 2006 Landscaping Guidelines developed for Section 1 tion 2, a range of form liner textures as shown in this and modified to meet the overall goals of the project. See document on Page 9 and on Pages 9 (Form Liners) and 10 (Form Liners) of the Section 3 Workbook for AAT the Walsh DBT Plan for Section 9.2.3 in this Aesthetics and Enhancement Implementation Plan. Landscaping

Project Section 1 Retaining Wall along north side of I-64 WB (embankment areas), beginning at the bridges over East Witherspoon/ CSX Railroad and extending west to the I-64 WB Bridge over River Road(area of I-64 WB paralleling River Road adjacent to Waterfront Park)

Presentation Requirements Options for form liner texture, illustrated with photos and physical samples. Wall shall be a minimum of 6 feet high and shall be fully integrated into the Landscaping Plan. Walls shall serve as control of access.

Meeting #1 in the appendices. The AAT and DBT recom- is accomplished at key locations where aesthetic treatmended to the BSMT that the Cut Stone option be used. ments can: Project Section 3 Retaining Walls along I-65 over Stansifer Ave. Presentation Requirements Match existing wall in appearance
„„ Enhance local communities. „„ Create a quality visual experience for visitors to

FROM THE RFP: 9.1.3.1 AESTHETICS AND ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The plan shall establish the DBT’s methodology for determining public preference on these options for presentation to the AATs and the BSMT in consultation with the BSHCT. The plan shall: A. Establish the methods for coordinating and interacting with the AATs and the BSMT in consultation with

THE WALSH DBT PLAN: The options and conclusions for this section are the

the community at ingress and egress points to the interstate network.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

same as the preceding project section discussion in this The new walls will be designed to match the appearance document. of the existing wall.

The landscaping plan philosophy is based on experi- the BSHCT. At a minimum, the DBT’s shall conduct two ence on the Watterson Expressway reconstruction project which was done in the 1990’s. Experience showed that certain types of plants were more likely to meetings with each AAT. The plan shall also define the methodology by which the DBT shall obtain from the AATs

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

16

and the BSMT in consultation with the BSHCT a final

Following the first set of AAT meetings on March 21, discuss final recommendations. Per the RFP, Section 9.1,

bridge, roadway, and surroundings that present opportu-

recommendation on each of the detailed aesthetic options. 2013, the BSHCT meeting, and the HPAT meetings, a THE WALSH DBT PLAN: follow-up meeting with the BSMT was held to develop actions to prepare for the second set of AAT meetings,

Paragraph 4, the BSMT shall consult with the BSCHT, nities in the development of a visually acceptable design. as appropriate, to review the recommendations. The DBT met with both the BSMT and BSCHT to present the draft recommendations. The Walsh DBT developed THE WALSH DBT PLAN: The AEM, through the technical proposal process, developed an overall approach to aesthetics enhancements in conjunction with the diverse interdisciplinary team. The DBT chose to invest heavily in aesthetics, understanding the history of the project on both sides of the river. Sections 1 and 2 already had a long history of public input on aesthetics but Section 3 had no public input for aesthetics. The AEM and team members met with representatives of Jeffersonville to get feedback on concepts prior to finalizing the technical proposal. Suggestions were incorporated from those meetings. Locations of emphasis were selected in a variety of ways to include:
„„ Environmental documents „„ Historic preservation plans „„ History of public meetings „„ Meetings with locals in preparation of the technical

The Walsh DBT, through regular Walsh-KYTC Aes- scheduled for April 25, 2013. Following the April 25

thetic Focus Group meetings, established a schedule 2013, AAT meeting, a meeting was held with the BSMT the final Recommendations and Decisions document for meetings with the AATs (Indiana’s and Kentucky’s), to discuss follow-up actions. All issues were successfully BSMT, BSHCT, and HPATs (Indiana’s and Kentucky’s), resolved after two AAT meetings and numerous formal as itemized and outlined in this document. Once a draft AEI Plan was approved, the DBT presented to the BSMT all graphics intended for the initial set of AAT meetings. After approval by the BSMT, the next step was to meet with the AAT members, who were provided a workbook for input into the development of the Record of Recommendations and Decisions. The DBT coordinated meeting times and dates with the BSMT and then sent the requisite notice of meetings to the AATs. The initial meeting was held in Indiana at the Holiday Inn Riverview and the second meeting at Guthrie-Mayes’ office on 3rd Street in Louisville. A meeting with the BSHCT was held on March 19, 2013, and informal meetings with stakeholders. KYTC provided input for the final AEI document at the follow-up meeting. The draft and final Record of Recommendations and Decisions were developed through the use of workbooks provided to AAT members at each meeting. The 11” x 17” workbooks had aesthetic and enhancements graphics on the left side of the page and space on the right side for recording comments, aesthetic preferences, the commenter’s signature, and the date. The page was perforated so that the right half could be removed and returned to the DBT. A second meeting with the BSHCT was held on May 21, 2013. Comments were incorporated into the and presented it to the BSMT, for final approval. The final Record of Recommendations and Decisions (RR&D) and the Appendix CD include:
„„ Introduction „„ AAT Meeting #1 materials: presentation, workbooks,

worksheets, meeting summaries, RR&D AAT #1 with spreadsheets for Sections 1, 2 and 3
„„ AAT Meeting #2 materials: presentation, workbooks,

worksheets, meeting summaries, RR&D AAT #2 with spreadsheets for Section 1 and 3, each spreadsheet includes 1 Section 2 issue, anchor piers
„„ Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions

for Sections 1, 2 and 3
„„ Additional supporting information

to review presentation materials for the initial AAT final document. After the first set of AAT meetings, a meetings. No review comments were received and no follow-up actions were required. Meetings with the two draft Recommendations and Decisions document, based

on AAT workbook input, was presented to the BSMT. B. Define the role of the Aesthetics and Enhancements

proposal
„„ RFP requirements

preservation advisory teams were held on March 27 and A similar approach was followed for the second meet- Manager in identifying areas or elements of the proposed 28, 2013. Again, no comments were received. ing. The DBT met with the BSMT on May 16, 2013, to

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

17

Goals were developed and include:
„„ Maximize benefits to local communities „„ Enhance impression of visitors to the community

ensure that AEI Plan requirements are implemented with the BSHCT with the DBT’s design and construction thoroughly and correctly in the design documents. Our AEM will have stop-work authority in the design and construction process. The Walsh DBT’s design quality process includes a mandatory interdisciplinary review teams. THE WALSH DBT PLAN: See comments to 9.1.1 included herein

Meeting with BSMT to finalize the AEI and RR&D

May 16, 2013 Meeting with BSHCT to finalize the AEI and RR&D

by enhancements to ingress and egress points from the interstate network

on each and every design package in each phase of de- E. Establish a schedule for the aforementioned two meet- May 21, 2013 Final AEI and RR&D submittal

C. Define the responsibilities and authority the Aesthetics velopment (conceptual, interim, and RFC). The review ings, and for submittal of the Record of Recommendations and Enhancements Manager shall have in overseeing and reviewing the overall bridge design, design details, full-scale by the AEM confirms compliance with the applicable requirements of the AEI Plan and the project scope. and Decisions document. THE WALSH DBT PLAN:

June 2013 Following the AAT meetings and follow-up meetings with the BSMT, the Walsh DBT submitted a Record of Recommendations and Decisions based on comments from the AAT members and BSMT. Included were DBT recommendations for adoption of concepts that had clear consensus. Items not having clear consensus were taken to the second AAT meeting. The DBT met with the BSHCT as directed by the BSMT. The Walsh DBT, in addition to the meetings described above, met in 2013, with the Downtown Development Corporation on January 28, February 5, March 18, April 4, April 19, April 23, May 6 and May 13. Meetings with Jeffersonville or City Pride occurred on March 11, March 19, April 4 and April 17. Numerous other formal and informal conversations and meetings were held to develop consensus.

mock-ups, samples, and other submittals relating to the Physical evidence of this review and resolution of any development of a visually acceptable design. THE WALSH DBT PLAN: Our AEM will lead the Walsh DBT program for coordination with the AATs, BSHCT, HPATs, and BSMT to

comments must be included in the quality documenta- The DBT worked with the AATs, in consultation with tion that is examined by the Design Quality Manager the BSHCT, to develop the AEI plan. Meeting dates are

(DQM) during audit of the package before it is submit- as follows: ted to KYTC for review. The DQM will not certify the package as complete and will not allow the package to Meeting with BSMT March 8, 2013 BSHCT meeting March 19 , 2013

develop the AEI Plan, culminating in clear decisions on advance to submittal if the AEM’s review has not been concepts that best meet the various needs and desires of completed and documented. This “no exceptions” aspect

the affected communities. The AEM will draw on and of our quality process ensures the AEM’s engagement manage resources from throughout the Walsh DBT for in all applicable details of the design and provides the

Initial AAT meetings March 21, 2013 (all meetings in one day) HPAT meetings March 27-28, 2013

architecture, engineering, and graphics expertise. He means for his oversight from the unique perspective of will communicate the final aesthetics and enhancements aesthetic compliance. requirements to the design team to ensure their proper implementation. He will accomplish this formally, by distribution of design direction memoranda, and informally, through his on-going attendance and participation in individual discipline focus group meetings. He will D. Define the authority of the Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager and the process for which the Aesthetics and Enhancements Manager shall coordinate the recommendations from the AATs and the BSMT in consultation

Meeting with BSMT April 5, 2013 Final AAT meetings April 25, 2013 (all meetings in one day)

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

18

F. Define the process of producing and submitting the Record of Recommendations and Decisions document, including review and approval of the document by the BSMT in consultation with the BSHCT, as appropriate. THE WALSH DBT PLAN: The final Record of Recommendations and Decisions document is being submitted as part of the final AEI plan.

A. Substantial landscaping and grading to enhance driving design guidelines shown above. In fact, members of the and pedestrian experience and reduce scale/visual impacts from long and close range view points. B. An attractive, uncluttered, under viaduct environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Adoption of buffer and transitional zones between historic districts and interchange to reduce noise and visual impact team worked with the original author of these guidelines in their development. The FEIS alternative was fully

The DBT’s AEI Plan describes the DBT’s approach to developing the designs for the areas of the Project adjoining historic properties/districts identified in the First Amended

vetted with the BSHCT, KHPAT, BSMT, and a variety of MOA dated April 4, 2012. The AEI Plan also identified key public and agency stakeholders during its development. It is recognized that the conceptual plans were developed with a slightly different direction and purpose than the FEIS alternative but efforts were made to be as consistent as possible with the Aesthetic Guidelines mentioned staff that shall be responsible for the planning and execution of the display, including at a minimum the following: A. An experienced historian with demonstrated previous experience in the documentation of historic structures.

The RR&D includes a compilation of signed workbook C. Clean, elegant, well-proportioned superstructures, sheets from AAT members, a summary spreadsheet of those comments along with DBT recommendations, workbooks from the meetings, presentation materials, and meeting summaries. The meetings with the BSHCT and HPATs provided an opportunity for the environmental groups to comment on DBT plans for Aesthetics and Enhancements. No actionable comments were received. viaduct piers, and wall structures. D. Use of uniform lightly painted elements like superstructures, railings, light poles, and sign supports, to visually unify the interchange. E. A consistent family of shapes to be used throughout the Project. F. Well-defined, attractive gateway bridges into the

above. The base option that the Walsh DBT proposed B. An experienced landscape architect with demonstrated is identical to the original ‘Guidelines’ option for piers, previous experience in the incorporation of historic elewalls, and abutments. The exception is that round shapes are being used instead of elliptical for ease of construction and has been presented consistently throughout the Technical Proposal and all related discussions. The second pier option that was required by the RFP is a variation of the original ‘Guidelines’ option. Secondary wall options were chosen to be of varying textures that represent materials used within the historic districts. It ments in the design and construction of highways. The key staff identified above shall be used for any Project work that involves incorporation of historic interpretation. THE WALSH DBT PLAN: The Walsh DBT’s approach to developing designs for areas of the project adjoining historic properties was as follows:
„„ Have an option that was already approved by the

FROM THE RFP: 9.2.2 GENERAL AESTHETIC AND ENHANCEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The DBT shall design and construct all aesthetics and enhancements elements so that the experience of travelers, both on the interstate and city streets, and neighbors is visually harmonious and orderly…. Key points of the (2006 aesthetic design) guidelines are summarized below:

community.

G. Surface streets to be designed as “complete streets” to was the intent of the DBT to present options to the AATs accommodate motorized vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles for everyday use. THE WALSH DBT PLAN: Members of the Walsh DBT developed both the original FEIS alternative and the conceptual plans shown in the RFP for this project in concert with the basic aesthetic in such a manner as to ensure a consistency of textures throughout the project that create a harmonious end product.

BSHCT and HPATs in Section 1 (i.e., options based on the 2006 Aesthetic Guidelines).
„„ Additional options for vertical walls that mimic

FROM THE RFP: HISTORIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

features found within historic districts such as limestone/brick form liner combinations and an

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

19

option that mimics natural geographic features such as layered limestone were offered for consideration, The key point of those guidelines and suggestions for

These landscape zones and their characteristics are as follows: A. I-64 Segment: Ravine Woodland a. Recessed highway flanked by densely planted (wooded) side slopes. b. Plants screen urban areas from the highway while buffering views of the highway from adjacent neighborhoods. B. I-64/I-71 Segment: Braid Bars and Islands a. Plants and landforms symbolize vegetated gravel bars and braid bars along rivers and creeks. b. Plants visually buffer multiple lanes of traffic, reducing distraction and improving drivability . C. I-64/I-65 Confluence: River Bottom Tree Groves a. Canopy of large bottomland trees (sycamores, cottonwoods) across gently rolling grassland . b. Tree canopy buffers visual “severity” of overhead highway structures. D. I-65 Segment: Rock Cliffs and Ledges a. Trees and shrubs along base of highway walls and abutments. b. Tall trees near walls visually buffer and mitigate scale and “severity” of walls.

lines referenced above as an example of the type, scale, and density of landscaping required for the Project. In addition, the DBT reviewed the Louisville Metro Land Development Code, Chapter 10 Part 3 for further guidance on expected landscaping requirements.

based on the guiding principles from RFP Section landscaping treatments in the interchange area are sum9.2.2 listed herein. Our team includes experienced cultural historians at Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRAI) and an experienced landscape architect in Jeff Grob of Stantec. CRAI has worked for the KYTC for many years and Mr. Grob has completed many projects of historic significance for Stantec. marized below: A. Reinforce a sense of regional identity and place. B. Create a quality visual experience for travelers. C. Improve highway drivability and safety. D. Provide visual continuity and internally unify various highway components. E. Integrate the interchange with the local setting. F. Screen and buffer views of the highway from adjacent areas, and screen views from the highway of unattract-

The DBT shall use the above guidelines as a starting point in the development of their AEI Plan and for meetings with the AATs, BSHCT and BSMT.

THE WALSH DBT PLAN: The Walsh DBT utilized the Landscaping Guidelines previously prepared by Section 1 landscape architects in earlier phases of the project as a starting point for their plan. Material types and philosophies from that previous plan were incorporated into the plan with some additional concepts such as: • Where do we spend finite resources and get the best ‘bang for the buck’? The Walsh DBT decided to place materials in this priority order: • Maximum community benefit from view shed enhancement and community integration. • Induce travelers into the community to have a positive first impression.

FROM THE RFP: 9.2.3 LANDSCAPE PLAN
During earlier stages of the LSIORBP, landscaping guidelines were developed for the Kentucky side of the Ohio River. The guidelines were presented in the Landscape Design Guidelines and Concepts for the Kennedy Interchange dated August 2006. See Section 1.9 of this Project Scope document for obtaining the Reference Document. As stated in Section 9.2.2, the DBT shall be responsible for developing similar principles and guidelines for the Indiana side of the river along the Greenway Corridor only with input from the Indiana AAT and the BSMT in consultation with the BSHCT.

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 reinforce multi-modal connections and linkages. K. Reduce roadside maintenance. L. Contribute to definition of community gateways.

The preliminary landscaping concept divides the Kennedy Interchange into landscape zones by existing context.

The DBT shall use the Schematic Landscape Plan for I-65 included in the August 2006 Landscaping guide-

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

20

• Realizing that maintenance is an issue, how does that affect the type and location of plants? • Use plant materials and walls along the south side of River Road to complement the Waterfront Park. • Provide bike/ped users of Witherspoon Street and River Road intersections with comfortable places to stop while traversing the area. • Use aesthetic access control retaining walls to enhance, rather than detract from the landscape.
Liberty Street Loop. Story Avenue. 10th Street

The Walsh DBT utilized past experience on local landscaping projects to refine the landscaping guidelines. The Watterson Expressway landscaping of the early 1990’s was used as a model and successful plant types were recommended for the Downtown Crossing. Below and to the right are the recommended concept graphics for each project section.
I-64/I-65/I-71 Stack.

River Road. Exit 0 NB Ramp.

Court Avenue.

I-64/I-71.

Stansifer Avenue.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

21

LOUISVILLE-SOUTHERN INDIANA OHIO RIVER BRIDGES PROJECT DOWNTOWN CROSSING

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions
Submitted By: Walsh Construction 100 Witherspoon Street Louisville, KY 40202 June 2013

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

22

This page left blank intentionally

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

23

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1
Section 1 - Surface Texture Plan and Aesthetic & Enhancement Treatment Location Plan Map

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

24

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Gateways: Market Street
This concept was developed from a sketch provided to the DBT by the AAT prior to the first 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.

Gateways: Monuments
A majority of the AAT members wanted the option to add finials, urns, or some other artwork to the monuments at some point in the future, after a local group decides what they should look like. The tops of the monuments will be sloped to provide drainage. The DBT will not provide or install the elements as part of this project.

Gateways: Market Street and Jackson Street
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 facades on the bridge over Jackson Street will not be enhanced.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

25

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Gateways: Main Street
This concept was developed from a sketch provided to the DBT by the AAT prior to the first 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.

Gateways: Signage

INFORMATION TO COME FROM A LOCAL COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAIN AND MARKET STREETS
Approach Spans: Kentucky

During a discussion with the DBT, a large group representing several downtown stakeholder groups stated that they would undertake this effort. Final decisions will be provided to the DBT by the end of 2014 and, in concurrence with the KYTC and consultation with the BSHCT, a final decision will be made. The DBT has agreed to install the signage as part of the project.

A majority of the AAT members wanted smooth columns with no reveals to match the existing columns that will be salvaged from the existing bridge and felt that the reveals presented could be a future maintenance issue.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

26

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Piers
See comments from the discussion on the Kentucky approach spans on the previous page. The AAT used similar rationale for recommending smooth columns.

Aesthetic Access Control
Both the AAT and the KYTC supported the retaining wall concept, but for different reasons. The AAT members preferred the retaining walls to provide additional space between the sidewalk and the wall; however, for engineering reasons the wall will not be located further from the sidewalk to create more space. KYTC was concerned about long-term maintenance behind the wall and a fence. The walls will have a cut stone appearance.

Plazas
The AAT members supported the construction of plazas at two locations: across Witherspoon Street from Slugger Field and near the Witherspoon Street and River Road Intersection near the Big Four Bridge. Final design will work out details of materials, bike racks, etc.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

27

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Form Liners
The AAT preferred the Cut Stone option. The DBT recommends approval.

Landscaping Liberty Street
The AAT wanted to simplify 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.

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

The AAT supported the concept of using canopy trees due to long term maintenance concerns of using shrubs or ornamentals. A final detailed landscape plan will be presented to the BSMT prior to completion of design.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

28

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Landscaping I-64/I-71 Braids and Bars
The AAT supported the concept of using canopy trees due to long term maintenance concerns of using shrubs or ornamentals. A final detailed landscape plan will be presented to the BSMT prior to completion of design.

Landscaping Story Avenue
The AAT supported the concept of using canopy trees due to long term maintenance concerns of using shrubs or ornamentals. A final detailed landscape plan will be presented to the BSMT prior to completion of design.

Landscaping River Road
The concept of using similar types and locations of tree species located within Waterfront Park near this River Road location was supported by the AAT.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

29

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 1
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Bicycle & Pedestrian Enhancement
This concept was supported by the AAT and will connect an existing multi-use path south of the I-64 corridor to the new plaza on River Road.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

30

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 2
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Anchor Piers
Both AATs supported the concept shown. It has an arched underside to the pier cap and round pier columns.

Tower Options
Both AATs supported the pointed tower top option.

Approach Spans: Indiana
Both AATs supported the option of round columns with reveals at eye level, similar to the concepts developed for the Aesthetic Design Guidelines for Section 1 in 2006.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

31

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 2
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Aesthetic Lighting
Both AATs supported this concept but asked for consideration of placement of lights for maintenance purposes. The lighting will need to adjust to accommodate fairings needed to mitigate wind impact. Also, the lighting will need to be approved by the U. S. Coast Guard.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

32

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 3
Section 3 - Surface Texture Plan Map

Retaining walls 9, 10, 18, 19, 21, 34A, 34B to match existing panel style (Smooth Puzzle Piece)

All other retaining walls to be “Cut Stone”

Retaining walls 38 & 39 (outside of Clark Memorial Bridge) to be partial reused limestone facade, partial limestone block form liner (similar to existing limestone appearance) : locations to be determined by Bi-State Management Team
N.T.S.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

33

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 3
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Gateways: Court Avenue East
The DBT recommends this option pending a decision by others about additional funding for further enhancements. A decision on lights atop the monuments is also pending. An amendment can be made to address any future changes that may occur.

Gateways: 10th Street
The DBT recommends this option pending actions by others to find additional funding for further enhancements. If changes occur at a future date, an amendment can be made to this document.

Gateway Signage - Court Avenue
The signage option reflects the work of a local committee and AAT comments.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

34

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 3
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
City Signage
The concept shown represents the work of a local committee and AAT comments. The base material will reflect a final decision on gateway treatments at Court Avenue.

Piers
The AAT prefers this option— round with reveals at eye level. The DBT recommends approval.

Form Liners
The DBT recommends— Cut Stone, to be used at locations illustrated on the Section 3 - Surface Texture Plan Map.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

35

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 3
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Landscaping: Court Avenue
The DBT recommends the concept shown, which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to use canopy trees in lieu of shrubs and fragile ornamentals due to long term maintenance concerns. The DBT will work with local groups during final design to address concerns and provide space for local planting efforts. A final detailed landscaping plan will be presented to the BSMT prior to the completion of design.

Landscaping: 10th Street

The DBT recommends the concept shown which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to use canopy trees in lieu of shrubs and fragile ornamentals due to long term maintenance concerns. The DBT will work with local groups during final design to address concerns and provide space for local planting efforts.

Landscaping: Stansifer

The DBT recommends the concept shown, which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to use canopy trees in lieu of shrubs and fragile ornamentals due to long term maintenance concerns. The DBT will work with local groups during final design to address concerns and provide space for local planting efforts. It is possible a noise barrier adjacent to the I-65 SB lanes could be constructed in the future. That decision will be made after construction.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

36

Final Record of Recommendations and Decisions Section 3
Final Graphic Recommendations and additional comments
Landscaping: Exit 0 NB Ramp
The DBT recommends the concept shown, which was supported by the AAT. The philosophy is to use canopy trees in lieu of shrubs and fragile ornamentals due to long term maintenance concerns. The DBT will work with local groups during final design to address concerns and provide space for local planting efforts.

AEI & Record of Recommendations and Decisions

37