Woodburn Interchange Draft Gateway Design Report

Woodburn Interchange Project C o n t e x t S e n s i t i v e a n d S u s t a i n a b l e S o l u t i o n s ( C S 3) Draft Gateway Design Report
May 2012
This page intentionally left blank
Context Sensitive Solutions
Acknowledgements
ODOT Project Development Team
Tim Potter, Mid-Willamette Valley Area Manager Alan Fox, Interchange Project Leader, CSS Project Leader John Lucas, Senior Roadway Designer Ernest Kim, Illumination Engineer Mike Shippey, RLA, Statewide Roadside Development Program Coordinator Liantao Xu, Senior Structural Designer Victor Alvarado, Right of Way Project Manager
Aesthetic Panel
Jack Bigej, Business Owner Durrell Crays, Citizen/Historic Woodburn Neighborhood Association Tom Flomer, Business Owner Matt Gwynn, City of Woodburn Maintenance Manager Jim Hendryx, City of Woodburn Economic and Development Services Manager Leo Hillyer, Business Owner Dick Koessel, Citizen/Senior Estates Board Member Maria Lopez, Business Owner Charlie, Piper, City of Woodburn Planning Commission John Reinhardt, Citizen Teri Sunderland, Business Representative Ruby Wolfer, West Coast Bank
Gateway Design Concept
Consultant Team
Otak
Tom Litster, Project Manager Kaitlin North, RLA, Lead Designer Ron Dean, AIA, Architectural Design Steve Dixon, RLA, Landscape Design Ian Fabik, P.E., Engineering Design and Cost Estimating Darrin Stairs, P.E., Contract Manager Emily Leete, Project Assistant
City of Woodburn
Dan Brown, Director, City of Woodburn Public Works Marta Trinidad, Administrative Assistant and Spanish Translation
JLA Public Involvement

Vaughn Brown, Principal, Public Involvement Sam Beresky, Public Involvement Stacey Thomas, Public Involvement
Luma Lighting
Zack Suchara, Director of Design
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 1 Table of Contents .................................................................................3

NIT IES
TRANSPORTATION
MU
COM
Connected by Landscape Connected by Transportation Connected as Communities
LA
ND SC AP E
Introduction ...........................................................................................4
A Community Gateway .........................................................................................................5 Context Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions Process ...........................................5 Aesthetic Panel ............................................................................................................................5 Connected by Landscape, Connected as Communities .....................................6
Gateway Design Concept ...................................................................7

Views from the Road ...............................................................................................................7 Bridge Enhancements ...................................................................................................... 8-10 Streetscape Enhancements................................................................................................11 Sound Wall Enhancements ........................................................................................12-13 Stormwater Facility Enhancements ...............................................................................14 Construction and Maintenance .......................................................................................15
Appendix ...............................................................................................17
Introduction
Bridge Enhancements
Woodland Avenue
Sound Wall Enhancement
Evergreen Road
Streetscape Enhancement
Robin Avenue
Stormwater Facility Enhancement
In
te
rs
ta
te
Sound Wall Enhancement
Highway 219 Highway 214 Stormwater Facility Enhancement Streetscape Enhancement
In
te
rs
ta
te
Woodburn Interchange Gateway Design

4 Context Sensitive Solutions
Introduction
The Woodburn Interchange is located on Interstate 5 (I-5) in Marion County, Oregon. The freeway overcrossing roadway is Oregon Highway 214 (OR 214) east of the interchange and Oregon Highway 219 (OR 219) west of the interchange. The Woodburn Interchange Project (Project) addresses existing operational and safety deciencies (e.g. multi-modal congestion and safety) in the existing interchange. These deciencies are anticipated to worsen with continued growth in Woodburn and the Willamette Valley as a whole over the next 20 years. The Project consists of reconstruction of the northbound and southbound highway ramps and widening of the overcrossing, related improvements along OR 214, and OR 219 local street connections to accommodate the recongured interchange, as well as streetscape improvements and sound walls further to the east and west of the interchange along OR 214/219. The Project also includes construction of a public Transit Facility at the northwest corner of OR 214 and Evergreen Road. Project construction is expected to begin in 2013 and extend through three construction seasons.
Context Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions Process

In preparing design concepts for a community gateway, ODOT used a community-driven Context Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions (CS3 ) process to meet the commitment made in the EA. Context Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions is an innovative decision-making framework developed by the Federal Highway Administration. This process helps ODOT work with communities to preserve Oregons scenic, aesthetic, historical, environmental, economic, and other community values while building safe and enduring projects. The CS3 umbrella includes eight factors: economic stimulus, diversity, environmental program management, environmental justice, mobility, public involvement, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. The CS3 process required ODOT to work closely with the community of Woodburn in the design process. The community engagement process included interactive design workshops with an Aesthetic Panel composed of community representatives and a Public Open House. The recommendations contained in this report represent the community design values and guidance derived from that engagement. Taken together, the aesthetics goal, ODOTs proposed impact mitigation measures, and commitment to the CS3 process in the EA constitute federal project requirements that must be met by the project plans and specications in order to receive federal funding for the Project. ODOT Project Development Team (PDT) members worked with the Panel to assure that the concepts complied with ODOTs safety and engineering design standards.
A Community Gateway
The interchange is the gateway to Woodburn and the surrounding area. It serves as the primary access to the freeway system for Woodburn and northern Marion County. Between 2003 and 2005, ODOT prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to select a preferred design for the interchange and assess the environmental impacts of that design. The EA recognized the unique opportunity for reconstruction of the interchange to also create an appealing community gateway. Consequently, one of the goals of the EA is to address the aesthetics of the interchange and to, Create a gateway entrance to Woodburn, (i.e. consider a variety of treatments such as underground utilities, landscaping, pavement widths. In addition, one of the Mitigation Design Considerations listed in Section 5 of the EA, stated that ODOT would, Design gateway intersections at I-5 as community enhancement areas with features appropriate to community urban design goals. Finally, a stakeholder comment at the public hearing on the EA stated, Woodburn needs adequate visual improvements [that will] create a more inviting environment for quality commercial development. The ODOT response to this comment, published in the EA, was a commitment to develop an aesthetically pleasing design for the interchange .....using context sensitive design approaches... [that] will signicantly impact not only the visual quality of the interchange but I-5 travelers impression of Woodburn.
Aesthetic Panel
ODOT requested that the City Council appoint community representatives to work with the ODOT Project Development Team and a consultant team on the gateway. In the summer of 2011, the Woodburn City Council appointed community members to an Aesthetic Panel (Panel). The Panel had exclusive aesthetic judgment and control over design recommendations. Their recommendations propose design upgrades to the normal ODOT interchange design. Their charter encouraged participants to represent their own personal views and expertise and to look for opportunities to nd common interest, agreements, and solutions. During the course of the summer and winter of 2011-12, the Panel attended four workshops to develop the Gateway design concepts for the interchange. The workshops were facilitated by consultant staff using CS3 principles, with extensive opportunities for the Panel to develop sketches of design themes and features. Following is a brief summary of the workshops. Complete meeting minutes of each workshop have been included in the Appendix.
Hands On Panel Workshops
...a Wow factor was widely desired to make the interchange memorable. Designs should be unusual without being extravagant. - Panel Workshop Summary, June 16, 2011
Introduction
Workshop One June 16, 2011 The CS3 process, the project purpose, and project schedule were reviewed with the Panel, along with their role in creating the gateway design package. The Panel brainstormed potential design features and community themes as guidance for the project team designers. Workshop Two August 18, 2011 The Panel reached consensus on the key design opportunity areas for the gateway. They also identied design themes to be explored as alternative design concepts. Some specic design features were suggested for the project design team in assembling design packages for Panel consideration. Workshop Three February 16, 2012 Two draft design concept packages were presented. The design features had gone through ODOT technical review and reected ODOTs safety and operational needs. The intent of the workshop was to develop consensus on one of those concept packages, with suggestions for renement of specic features. The Panel reached consensus on the enhancement concepts for the sound walls, stormwater facilities, and streetscape. The Panel also had a majority preference for a bridge enhancement concept that combined suggestions of the geological landforms of the Willamette Valley with contemporary architectural accents. However, some members felt that they had not seen a full exploration of the bridge enhancement concept based upon Victorian themes they had previously suggested. There was an agreement to develop that alternative for review before nal consensus was reached. Panel Workshop - Gateway Sketch Alternative Design Mini-Workshop February 23, 2012 An interim meeting was scheduled to help the design team better understand the nature of the Victorian-themed concept in order to develop a new design package for consideration. A sub-group of the Panel met to discuss specic features and provide additional guidance to the design team for developing this design alternative for the bridge. Workshop Four April 4, 2012 The Panel reviewed two bridge enhancement concepts. The rst was the previously supported concept from Workshop Three, with some renements made in response to specic comments from the Panel. The second concept was the newly developed Victorian-themed design, also based on specic comments from Panel members. Discussion led to unanimous Panel consensus on the previously supported bridge enhancements, along with the previously endorsed concepts for sound walls, stormwater facilities, and streetscape enhancement. Those features comprise the gateway design concept illustrated on the following pages. Probable construction costs of the enhancement elements were also shared and discussed with the Panel. Public Open House April 24, 2012 The public was invited to attend the Open House at the Estates Golf Club to review the preferred gateway design concept and hear a project overview. Attendees received other informational material and a comment card for feedback. Comments were favorable toward the aesthetic design package and the community-focused decision making process. Sixty-six people signed in, but actual attendance was somewhat more than that. Panel members attended and assisted the project team in engaging the public and answering questions about the design proposals.
Panel Workshop - Gateway Sketch
Connected by Landscape, Connected as Communities

A critical step for the Panel was reaching consensus on design themes for the gateway. Great ideas surfaced during that initial Panel workshop. The list grew shorter as the Panel recognized the need for their ideas to be expressed through constructed forms, materials, and colors. It was also clear that no single design concept could express all of the thematic ideas suggested. Ultimately, a nal preferred alternative emerged that was largely inspired by two themes developed during the workshops. A Landscape Theme and Context Ice age oods swept through Montana, eastern Washington and into the Willamette Valley, sending more than a hundred feet of water over present day Woodburn, and causing sediment to accumulate in thick layers. More recently, ice age soils have been augmented by ooding of the Willamette River, creating the rolling hills of one of the worlds most productive agricultural landscapes, and a National Natural Landmark for Oregon. A Communities Theme Historically transportation of settlers, goods, and services included rivers and the arrival of the Union Pacic Railroad. Today, OR 214/219 connects the eastern and western parts of Woodburn with the nearby valley communities. Berries, vegetables, hops, and hazelnuts grow in topsoil that was, in part, removed by oods from the scrublands of Eastern Washington. The interstate system connects communities all the way back to Missoula and includes a series of interchanges that are commercially advantageous hubs for those communities. For the most part, interchanges are indistinguishable from each other. At Woodburn, that can change. A freeway interchange can become a community landmark.
Panel Workshop - Landscape Sketch


Views from the Road
Design involves a balanced judgment about many factors, of which visual requirements are only one set. We are convinced, however, that these requirements are among the most important that a road must satisfy.
B A
C A
- The View from the Road, 1963 The predominant gateway experience will be the view from the road. Insight into the publics perception of the visual qualities of highway infrastructure and the highway context has become increasingly important to decision-makers. The CS3 process for the Woodburn Interchange Project allowed the Panel to evaluate what will be seen from where and at what speeds in order to develop a gateway design concept for consideration by Woodburn City Council. The Panel came to appreciate that the views from the road will be primarily from I-5 and from Highway 214/219. Both environments are mostly vehicular in use, with complex trafc and relatively high speeds. The Panel agreed that the primary design opportunities and the prioritization of those opportunities should be as illustrated below. Bigger elements like the bridge structure and the large landscape areas associated with on- and off-ramps will be the landmark features of the gateway. Their visual qualities will create a memorable impression.
C B
Design Opportunities Along I-5
Colored Areas Suggest the Best Opportunities to Enhance the Appearance of the Bridge Prioritizing the Views for Design
Context Sensitive Solutions 7

Bridge Enhancements
The Bridge by Day The reconstructed OR 214/219 bridge over 1-5 will be the most visually memorable aspect of the interchange. The Panel agreed that design enhancements should consider two scales: size and vehicle speed. Vehicle speeds are high on freeways, trafc is often complex, and the structures are large. What most travelers notice are bold forms, colors, and impressions of attractive landscaping.
Bridge Enhancements Viewed from I-5 Panel Workshop - Making an Impression Sketch Enhancements supported by the Panel include decorative fencing, surface details for outside of the bridge deck, architectural accent lighting at night, and landscaping around the bridge abutments. Decorative fencing suggests the rolling hills that characterize much of the valley. Landscape terracing was also widely supported as a design feature in the early workshops. They will be created using forms and materials complementary to the bridge features. There was also a request from the Panel to create a more attractive design for the sign bridges, if possible. That design concept is not shown in the illustrations but alternative designs will be explored during that phase of the interchange project.
Rolling Hills and Agricultural Land of the Willamette Valley Panel Workshop - Decorative Fence Sketch
Bridge Enhancements Viewed from Highway 214/219 Note: Final design will integrate protective and decorative fencing.

Bridge Enhancements
Welcome Home, the Lights are On Aesthetic lighting of bridge features has grown in popularity regionally and nationally. While it was once primarily used for bridges over waterways, aesthetic lighting is becoming a more common feature of freeway interchanges as well. For the Woodburn Gateway, special lighting will create a distinctive presence for the decorative fencing and architectural detail of the bridge structure. There will be nothing else quite like it along Oregons I-5. Three different xture types and lighting angles will be used to softly accentuate the enhancement features of the bridge. Light-emitting diode (LED) lamps will be used throughout to increase longevity and reduce electricity consumption and maintenance. The exact color scheme and array of xtures will be determined during the development of nal design.
Soft Glow Uplighting
Decorative Lighting of Freeway Bridge in New Mexico
Soft Glow Uplighting with Accent Lighting
Decorative Lighting of Freeway Bridge in Minnesota


Bridge Enhancements
The Importance of Landscaping Decades of research has conrmed several factors that consistently dene the visual experience and positive aesthetic qualities for highway travelers. Attractive design is typically viewed as something that displays a good t between highway design and its context. Landscape design rises to the top as something people notice and nd attractive or unattractive. In a recent study by a state transportation department, travelers perception of attractiveness consistently included decorative railings, special touches for bridge walls and materials, good functional design, and landscaping. Designs that emphasized inherent characteristics of the larger landscape, such as rolling hills or other natural features, were specically cited as highly desired. The landscape areas enclosed by the new ramp system provide over three acres of opportunity for landscape enhancements. Gently curved lengths of corten steel will form low terrace walls, which will create a place for hardy and droughttolerant shrubs and trees. Forms and colors of the terracing harmonize nicely with those of the decorative bridge fencing. For the landscape areas, there are safety and operational needs related to clear sight lines for vehicles and limiting the number of additional xed objects that could be struck by vehicles that will limit terraced landscaping and trees to approximately the areas illustrated. In the northwest quadrant of the interchange the BPA transmission corridor will also place some limitations on the use of trees.
Bridge Features and Landscaping Visually Complement One Another
Panel Workshop - Creating Terraces Sketch
Panel Workshop - Importance of Trees Sketch

Hillsides of the Valley Inspired the Landscape Design
Corten Plate Steel Creates Landscape Terraces

Streetscape Enhancements
A Gateway Streetscape The roadway across the bridge provides a different perspective on aesthetic enhancements. The Panel agreed that a gateway streetscape should be developed for a segment of OR 214/219, between the intersections of Evergreen Road and Woodland Avenue. The design concept should create book ends for the visually enhanced bridge. However, limited right-of-way, intersection geometry, volumes of vehicle and trafc, and the lack of continuous building fronts near the sidewalks limit opportunities to create a highly pedestrian-friendly streetscape. Despite these limitations, there are potential design enhancements. They include special paving treatments for intersection corners and crosswalks, decorative trafc signal poles and mast arms using paint and bolt-on bases, paving treatments for center lane medians, and street trees in landscape planters where sidewalk widths will be 12-feet or greater. Decorative concrete paving and signal poles will require continued technical review and approval by ODOT. Constructability, trafc impacts during construction, and long-term maintenance will be critical considerations. Concept Sketch of the Evergreen Road / OR 214 Intersection The Panel also considered installation of ornamental street lights, similar to those in the downtown core. However, after reviewing before and after photo simulations the conclusion was that the land use and streetscape support the additional cost of such lighting. A nal consideration raised was the potential for any additional aesthetic enhancement of the proposed transit facility near the intersection of Evergreen Road and OR 214. Possible transit facility enhancements will be explored during the development of nal design, although it may be determined that no changes to the current design are warranted.
Opportunities for Landscape Planters and Median Pavements Focus Area for a Gateway Streetscape
11

Sound Wall Enhancements
Colors and Textures Construction of concrete block sound walls are major elements of the interchange improvements. They are a necessary measure to reduce roadway noise for adjacent properties. Information about their location and functional design requirements have been provided to property owners through the interchange planning process. At roughly 12-feet in height and 4,000-feet in total length, these sound walls will be a prominent visual feature in the streetscape of OR 214/219 as it approaches the interchange. The proposed design enhancements utilize color and textural patterns for the concrete block in lieu of standard gray blocks typically used for this type of wall. Special attention will also be given to the design of the wall pilasters (which repeat approximately every 14-feet) and wall cap details. Research is underway regarding the best coatings and protective treatments to prevent discoloration over time, and to make removal of potential grafti as easy as possible. That research will continue during the development of nal construction design.
Patterns of Colored Concrete Block as Visual Enhancement
Colors and Textures Possible with Concrete Block
Approximately 4,000 of Sound Wall


Sound Wall Enhancements
Public Art Opportunities Sound walls will be constructed of materials that make them more attractive. That alone is a signicant enhancement for the gateway. However, the City of Woodburn has expressed an interest in using public art to further transform the walls. The City envisions using selected wall panels, each approximately 14-feet long and 12-feet high, as an outdoor art gallery to be enjoyed by pedestrians and motorists traveling along OR 214/219. The City believes that providing this venue for art can make the roadway into more than a busy street on the way to other places. It can become a unique opportunity to view and enjoy artistic expression. A public art program can be developed that engages the citizens of Woodburn in determining what art should be displayed along the sound walls. Art forms could range from mural-like paintings to more sculptural elements attached to the walls. It may even be possible to periodically rotate and change the art on display. As an implementation step, the City Council should appoint an advisory committee for the art program. Without imposing undue constraints, the committee could establish desired themes, recommend artists, review their proposals, and give consensus support for the art that will ultimately be displayed. Professional and aspiring artists alike can be invited to participate, including children from local schools. Continuing discussions are needed with regard to public art on sound walls. First, the City should further develop the public art program and types of art desired. Secondly, there needs to be continuing technical design review and evaluation regarding protective coatings, installation of art, and construction details.
Continuous and Uniform Patterns of Color and Texture
More Diffuse and Irregular Patterns of Color
Wall Panels with a Color Pattern for Art Installations
13

Stormwater Facility Enhancements
Stormwater management facilities are a necessary and important element of the interchange project. Two of the facilities will be located within the primary enhancement opportunity areas identied by the Panel. A detention pond (E on the location map) will be in direct view of the proposed transit facility and trafc approaching the interchange from the east along OR 214. It will be a large facility, approximately the size of a soccer eld, and about 12 feet in depth at its deepest point. An existing drainageway in the southwest quadrant of the interchange will be an important part of stormwater management. The eastfacing embankment will be visible from I-5 and the southbound on-ramp. The Panel agreed that visual enhancement of those facilities should be part of the gateway design.
Landscaping to Visually Screen a Stormwater Detention Pond
Primary Stormwater Facilities for the Interchange
A Simple Concrete Block Wall to Visually Improve a Drainageway Embankment


Construction and Maintenance
Probable Costs of Aesthetic Enhancements
At the beginning of the CS3 process, a planning level construction budget of roughly $2,000,000 was established for the aesthetic gateway enhancements. The budget was based, in part, on the City of Woodburns overall contribution to the interchange project, and on continual updating of the overall cost estimate for the project. Once the Panel and the design team had agreed on the priority gateway areas for enhancement, the design team apportioned that budget among four key areas of enhancements, as illustrated below. Design alternatives were consciously shaped to have high probability of being constructible within those targeted ranges of cost. The most recent conceptual cost estimates suggest that the gateway design concepts illustrated in this report can be implemented within the budget. As design is further developed during the development of nal engineering design, the estimate of costs will be rened. If adjustments of any details of the design concept are required, for either cost or technical reasons, they will be made at that time.
Maintenance of Gateway Design Elements

The proposed design concepts illustrated in this report all have additional maintenance costs associated with keeping them in good repair and looking good. To date, the following general maintenance responsibilities have been agreed to by Woodburn Public Works and the ODOT District 3 and Project Development Team: Landform arches screen structural damage ODOT Decorative lighting and power for decorative lighting on bridge Woodburn Sign bridge structure ODOT; signage on sign bridge will be diamond grade reective signs that do not require lighting ODOT Sound wall structural damage ODOT Sound wall surface grafti and any art program Woodburn Patterned pavement in the Woodland and Evergreen Road intersections with OR 219/214 ODOT. Inclusion of patterned pavement in the intersections is contingent on resolving how to technically maintain the joint between concrete and asphalt. Decorative paving on the Transit Facility transfer platform -- Woodburn Retaining wall in the storm water trench in the southwest quadrant ODOT; any grafti will be painted over. Landscaping at ends of bridge and around the storm water detention ponds Woodburn Retaining walls within the loop ramps ODOT
ODOT has preliminarily agreed to pay the cost of maintenance of the recommended enhanced landscaping included in this report for the rst year as part of the interchange construction contract and has agreed in concept to an additional two years as part of a separate contract in order to provide a threeyear establishment period. The cost of this maintenance during the three-year period will be covered by Project funds. However after that period, ODOT does not have sufcient maintenance funding to cover anything other than mowing grass on the freeway right of way; i.e., the only landscape maintenance ODOT is able to do with available funding and staff is grass mowing with its standard tractor-towed 18-foot wide gang mowers. ODOT maintenance funding has reached such a low level that any additional landscape maintenance can not be accomplished without reductions of its current commitments. The proposed landscaping in this report will require specialized maintenance to keep it looking good and free of invasive species. SODOT is unable to provide that specialized maintainence. If the landscaping is to be included in the Project plans, the city will need to agree in the IGA to maintain the recommended landscaping in perpetuity for the life of the project. If the city is unable to commit to long-term maintenance of this landscaping, it will deteriorate and become an unsightly eyesore that detracts from the investment being made in the other design enhancements. It should be noted that if landscaping is excluded, the areas designated for landscaping will be planted with a short grass variety that needs minimal or no mowing and will turn brown in the summer. Woodburn Public Works estimates that a moderate level of landscape maintenance that would keep the areas looking attractive and keep out invasive species will cost in the range of $45,000 to $50,000 per year, based on current unit costs and the proposed landscaped area. The target time frame for the council to commit to funding the landscaping maintenance is the rst half of July. ODOT needs a commitment from Woodburn by this time because that is when work on the detailed landscaping plans will be started. The landscape design must be completed for inclusion in the overall Project plan set. In order for ODOT to proceed with landscape plans by that date, the council only need agree to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that it will commit to including landscape maintenance funding as a city obligation in the IGA. In other words, for purposes of the IGA, an actual dedicated source of funding need not be identied -- the city only needs to commit to maintain the recommended landscaping. Practically speaking, the city will have three years after the completion of construction in 2015; i.e., sometime in 2018, to identify an actual source of dedicated maintenance funds. The Panel recommends that enhanced landscaping be included in the Interchange Project and that the City Council agree to provide required maintenance of the enhanced right-of-way in an IGA with ODOT no later than July 15, 2012.
Woodburn Interchange Project Aesthetic Enhancement Budgets

Bridge Enhancements Decorative fencing Bridge Architectural Details Landscape Planting Landscape Walls and Earthwork Accent Lighting Architectural Sign Bridges Contingency Allowance Sound Wall Enhancements CMU Block Upgrades Architectural Details Protective Coating Foundation Planting Contingency Allowance Streetscape Enhancements Crosswalk and Median Pavements Signal Pole Upgrades Street Trees and Landscaping Contingency Allowance Stormwater Facility Enhancements Detention Facility Enhancement Drainageway Embankment Wall Contingency Allowance Aesthetic Enhancements Total $950,000 - $1,200,000 $150,000 - $200,000
Maintenance of Landscaping.
A key part of the Panels recommendations is attractive landscaping. There are approximately 5 acres of primary landscape areas that will make a signicant visual contribution to the gateway design concept and will require a relatively high level of maintenance. These areas are in within the loop ramps and around the storm water detention ponds is required for the project. There are also approximately 7.5 acres of secondary landscape areas within the interchange project. While these areas are of less visual importance to the gateway design, they will benet from modest levels of maintenance. While maintenance alone will not create a perception that the landscape design is attractive, irregular or neglected maintenance can diminish visual appreciation of a good design. A standard part of every ODOT project is an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), one part of which addresses whose obligation it is to maintain various project elements. This document has particular signicance regarding the Panels recommendations for the on-going maintenance of all of the gateway design elements, but especially the recommended enhanced landscaping.
$250,000 - $300,000
$250,000 - $300,000
$1,600,000 - $2,000,000
Appendix
17
Woodburn Interchange Project

Aesthetic Advisory Panel Meeting #1 June 16, 2011 5:30 to 9:00 p.m. Wellspring Medical Center
The panel introduced themselves. Vaughn Brown led introductions of the consultants, reviewed the format and ground rules of the workshop.
Design Opportunities and Constraints

Tom Litster gave a PowerPoint Presentation about the design opportunities and constraints. The key points he made were: This is an opportunity to design something more by: o Making this more than a freeway interchange o Thinking beyond the minimum o Telling a story and build a gateway o Creating a new interchange environment o Designing a unique landmark for Woodburn o Showing community pride and enthusiasm o Motivating a willingness to invest community attractiveness Examples from other communities were displayed to encourage creative thinking o Interstate 15/Blue Diamond Interchange o I-405 Corridor in Washington Participating most effectively in this aesthetic design process is based in: o Understanding opportunities and constraints o Identifying a story or a theme tonight o Developing design concepts in subsequent workshops o Prioritizing the recommendations Opportunities to provide aesthetic ideas are constrained to those elements of the current structure that will be replaced, expanded or repaired. Those include: o Partial rebuild of the existing structure o Widening the deck for new lanes and walkways o Modifying some structural elements o Cannot affect the function and safety or add significant weight o Bridge abutments o Columns, decks and railings Ideas for enhancing the structural elements were outlined o Applying materials for a new face o Catch the eye with metal works o Using color o Innovative retaining and sound walls o Inventive walkways Adding design features and public art to make this a showpiece o Decorative lighting to make it memorable at night o Art can be placed on the structure and in the landscape Landscape aesthetic opportunities include: o Enhancing the planting design o Managing stormwater o Structuring the fill slopes o Drawing attention to planting and stormwater Finding a Theme for Design o What gateway story would you like to tell? o Who will see it and what will they remember? o Think about your history and economy o Think about your landscape setting o Can these design elements tell that story?
Meeting Summary
Meeting purpose
Understand project purpose, schedule, roles and expectations
Explain CS3 process as it applies to Woodburn project Identify potential design features and community themes
Attendance
Jack Bigej Durrell Crays Tom Flomer Matt Gwynn Jim Hendryx Leo Hillyer Maria Lopez Cheryl Morris Charlie Piper John Reinhardt Teri Sunderland Ruby Wolfer
Project Team
Alan Fox, ODOT John Lucas, ODOT Mike Shippey, ODOT Robert Tovar, ODOT Steve Dixon, Otak Kaitlin North, Otak Tom Litster, Otak Sam Beresky, JLA Public Involvement Vaughn Brown, JLA Public Involvement
Welcome and Opening

Meeting Purpose, agenda and introductions Alan Fox welcomed the panel, reviewed the meeting purpose, agenda and logistics. The overall meeting purpose was to understand the aesthetic panel purpose, schedule, roles, expectations, and to explain the CS3 process as it applies to the Woodburn Interchange project, and to identify potential design features and community themes. Alan gave a PowerPoint presentation that included: Purpose of Workshops The Interchange and gateway Overview of Interchange Project Explanation of Aesthetic upgrades/funding/costs Scope of Woodburn Interchange Transit Facility Plan Workshop Schedule Role of ODOT Aesthetic Advisory Panel Role and Charter o Roles and Expectations o The Panel Reviewed and Approved the Charter
Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #1
1/5
June 24, 2011
2/5
June 24, 2011
18
Aesthetics Elements Small Group Work

Vaughn Brown gave a brief overview of the small group work. The small group exercises were formatted to brainstorm ideas, draft a statement about what the interchange should embody and to review design elements. Discussion questions included: What should this gateway evoke? What are the Woodburn values and/or character we want this structure to embody? What materials, form and colors best represent the above? The panel split into two small discussion groups. Group A: Sam Beresky Facilitator Steve Dixon Designer Jack Bigej Durrell Crays Matt Gwynn Maria Lopez Cheryl Morris Charlie Piper Overall Theme: Agri- Multi- Cultural Community Through a word exercise, three main themes emerged from the group; Opportunity, Growing and Changing. The major topic areas that emerged were primarily the diversity/multicultural/community of Woodburn and the current and historic variety of agriculture that is prominent in and around Woodburn. The group focused on the multicultural and agriculture aspects of Woodburn. When the group began discussing imagery and how to apply their theme to the interchange they discussed what they wanted to see. There was a long discussion about utilizing a variety of images for the different quadrants of the interchange and the different speeds that motorists/pedestrians would see the interchange. There was also a request to use natural treatments for retaining and sound walls (rather than just poured concrete). They thought that the imagery should be: Different textures Repeatable Iconic Simple Multiple Exposures Variety Symbolic Symbolic words from exercise: Changing Colorful Opportunity Growing Community Farming/agriculture/nurseries (5) Berries (2) Tulip From the earth Location center, middle, heart Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #1 3/5 June 24, 2011
Growing Multi-cultural/diversity (5) Community Family Simple/basic Old town Shopping First settled Oregon Trail Prairie One panel member commented that an agreement from the City needs to be secured in order to ensure that any landscaping we include will not be overgrown by blackberries and other invasive species. Alan Fox responded that the IGA for the project would include an estimated annual cost of maintenance that the City would need to agree to if additional landscaping were to be included in the project. Group B: Vaughn Brown Facilitator Kaitlin North Designer Tom Flomer Jim Hendryx Leo Hillyer John Reinhardt Teri Sunderland Ruby Wolfer The group brainstormed major ideas they wished to capture in the aesthetic design. The word exercise focused on what this interchange is a gateway to. The group felt that the interchange should invite interstate users to pull off and visit. The initial ideas offered were existing attractions and events. This led to more of a region-wide gateway rather than just a Woodburn gateway. There was interest in emphasizing Woodburn and especially encouraging visits into the downtown Woodburn. Many felt that passersby only get to see the Highway 214 strip and dont realize that there is more to the city. The theme statement described the character of the gateway as a front door to a welcoming, friendly town with an agricultural base that has lots to discover. The group then began discussing imagery and how to apply their theme to the interchange. They envisioned retaining walls that include images, or even words, showcasing what is in store visitors as the get off the interstate. The overcrossing railing might use a vine-like motif to let travelers know that Woodburn is just off the highway. A WOW factor was widely desired to make the interchange memorable. The group considered how to use the four quadrants to take advantage of the speed reductions and waiting periods to deliver the gateway message. Designs were broadly outlined to be unusual without being extravagant. Materials should incorporate color and texture to make them interesting. The key aspects of the discussion were captured by Kaitlin in sketches on tracing paper that were favorably responded to by the group as a whole. Those should be used to guide further design. Symbolic words from exercise: Something special events/people Agricultural gateway Gateway to flowers, festivals, fresh produce Beauty/proud to be Woodburn/proud to be from here Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #1 4/5 June 24, 2011
19
Good looking place Gateway to Woodburn and beyond! Gateway to much fun o Drag strip o Shopping o Oktoberfest o Flowers Tulip Festival o Farming Hub Must see stop Shopping Farming/pumpkin Rich in agriculture Friendly/welcoming town (2) Come look around Jewel of the Willamette Valley Front door to Woodburn Always fresh discoveries Welcome to Woodburn First impression strong Big Wow! Reaction
Close
Tom Litster let the group know that designers can use form, texture, color and materials to convey the message. Any message should be kept simple. Vaughn Brown thanked the group for their hard work. He said that the designers will take the messages and information from the meeting and come back to the group with a concept extrapolated from their input. In between meetings, the project team will provide progress reports and updates to the group via email. Alan Fox said that the group could email at any time in the process with questions, comments, concepts and examples. There were no comments from the public. Next Meeting: August 18th, 2011 Wellspring Medical Center
Workshop Illustrations
The attached sketches and diagrams where generated during the small group work session by the Otak designers as they listened to the ideas and aspirations of Aesthetic Advisory Panel members .
5/5
June 24, 2011
20

Aesthetic Advisory Panel Meeting #2 August 18, 2011 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. Wellspring Medical Center
Interchange Design Story and Opportunities

Tom Litster gave a PowerPoint Presentation about the workshop overview, design story and design opportunities. The PowerPoint included numerous visual examples. The key points he made were: Synthesizing a Story from the Panels Input o Connect by Landscape Connected by Transportation Connected as Communities o Agriculture is the Landscape Story The Landscape is a Flood Story Missoula Floods created a landscape across three states and shaped the Willamette Valley o Hub is the Transportation Story The interchange is by its nature a hub o Diversity is the Communities Story Communities from Eugene to Montana are connected by the flood outcomes and transportation system The group approved of the design storyline. A Story That Can Be Told o Told in form, materials, colors and textures o Seen from the freeway and Hwy 214 o Creates the Wow factor for motorists o Creates a visual landmark to remember Gateway, Landmark and Investment Reviewed the Wow opportunity areas o Bridge o Landscaping Review of Virtual drive of new interchange o Structure and Landscaping areas most visible Bridge Railing Bridge Supports Terrain inside interchange loops New Expressions of Bridge and Landscape are the key places to add WOW to design Sound Walls o Supporting design feature o Adding a little wow is possible Highway 214 Streetscape o Supporting design features o Continuous and integrated with bridge design o Attractive part of the gateway o Sidewalks and intersections are the best opportunities
Meeting Summary
Meeting purpose
Provide process update Review and approve suggested design storyline Obtain consensus for suggested design opportunities and character Understand project purpose, schedule, roles and expectations
Attendance
Jack Bigej Durrell Crays Tom Flomer Matt Gwynn Jim Hendryx Leo Hillyer Joe Long Charlie Piper John Reinhardt
Project Team
Alan Fox, ODOT Ernest King, ODOT Darrell James, ODOT Mike Shippey, ODOT Steve Dixon, Otak Kaitlin North, Otak Tom Litster, Otak Sam Beresky, JLA Public Involvement Vaughn Brown, JLA Public Involvement
Members of the Public in Attendance

Dan Brown, Woodburn Public Works Director Willis R. Grafe, Senior Estates Resident
Welcome and Opening

Meeting Purpose, agenda and introductions Alan Fox welcomed the panel, reviewed the meeting purpose, agenda and logistics. The overall meeting purpose was provide a process update, review and approve the suggested design storyline, obtain consensus for suggested design opportunities and to understand the project purpose, schedule, roles and expectations. Alan requested panel members to attend a City Council meeting on September 26th to help present an update of the panel process to the council. John Reinhardt volunteered to attend and Leo Hillyer said that he might be able to attend and requested a reminder as the meeting approached. Alan reminded the panel that the aesthetic upgrades would be part of the project. He defined the upgrade cost as the difference between the cost of the upgrade and the standard design that ODOT would normally complete without upgrades. Vaughn Brown reviewed the workshop purpose and ground rules.
Aesthetics Elements Small Group Work

Vaughn Brown gave a brief overview of the small group work. The small group exercises were formatted to brainstorm design concepts. Discussion questions included: Where would you like to see the Wow design features? We provided some sample Wow features. Which ones do you like? Have we overlooked a big design opportunity? The panel was split into two small discussion groups. Group A:
1/5
August 18, 2011
2/5
August 18, 2011
21
Sam Beresky Facilitator Kaitlin North Designer Jack Bigej Tom Flomer Jim Hendryx Joe Long Charlie Piper Through a picture exercise, the group discussed design elements they liked and disliked with designer Kaitlin North sketching examples throughout the process. Overall, the group focused on the Landscape Areas A as the main focus of the discussion with a theme of terraced walls and natural colors emerging. The center should include large trees and/or an obelisk of some sort as well as features that would serve as a sort of water feature for stormwater runoff. The design theme should be extended through the bridge, sidewalks and soundwalls. Discussion about the bridge and railing began by the group wanting to extend the walls from the landscaping onto the bridge but they also discussed simple arches and wrought iron railings. The group eventually discussed the bridge representing a small town setting connecting the nature of the landscaped areas on both sides. The small town type setting could include the railing, light fixtures and sidewalks representative of a small town urban setting. The town connected to nature was a theme generally approved by the group. Key words from discussion:
suggesting elements they liked and disliked with designer Steve Dixon asking probing questions and sketching conceptual layouts of the groups grove theme for Landscape Area A. Initially focusing on trees as the centerpiece of the area, the group also discussed bringing some elements of the bridge design into the landscape area. Natural colors and shapes were suggested. That nature inspired design theme was recommended to guide the bridge area design as well. Shapes along the railing evoking tree-like shapes were popular. Metal (copper, brushed steel) was the most often mentioned material. The group expressed interest in closing the below-bridge abutment areas but did not want to attract campers. They determined that if the area cannot be secured it should not be enclosed. Enhanced overhead lighting from the standard cobra-style fixtures was strongly endorsed. Pathway lighting was also suggested. Lighting the bridge structure was essential to making it stand out as a nighttime landmark. Key words from discussion:
Structure Finish under the abutments but dont make a shelter Light the structure so it is seen at night Railing Tree shapes outlined along railing Copper/metallic materials Landscaping Bucolic natural Space between plantings No lawn See tree canopy around Old Woodburn from interchange
Positive Elements: Railing tie the two sides together Nature/landscape ties the entire design together Like cleaner, simple railing Continued from landscaping Low maintenance Earth tones/bronze Landscape Terraced walls, like the elevation change Color and textures In center of landscaping incorporate runoff in a feature, large trees or a metal obelisk type object Negative Elements: No bright colors Not too busy No landforms
The groups presented their ideas to one another. Discussion included the recognition of the high correlation between the groups ideas.
Close
Tom Litster thanked the group for being engaged and giving design advice. He reiterated that there were many similarities in the two groups, among them was an aversion to bright colors and translucent materials and the focus on the Landscape Areas A. He said that the designers would take the input from the two groups and run it through multiple filters, including technical feasibility. Vaughn Brown thanked the group for their hard work. He said that the designers will take the messages and information from the meeting and come back to the group with mostly finalized design concept, including cost estimates. In between meetings, the project team will provide progress reports and updates to the group via email. Alan Fox said that the group could email at any time in the process with questions, comments, concepts and examples. He reminded John Reinhardt and Leo Hillyer of the September 26th City Council meeting they volunteered to attend. There were no comments from the public. Next Meeting: October 20th, 2011 Wellspring Medical Center
Group B: Vaughn Brown Facilitator Steve Dixon Designer
The group began by identifying their desire for a design that evokes serenity, beauty and a welcoming atmosphere. They discussed using nature inspired design elements. Members began Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #2 3/4 August 18, 2011
4/4
August 18, 2011
22

Aesthetic Advisory Panel Meeting #3 February 16, 2012 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. Wellspring Medical Center
Alan and Stacy Thomas reviewed the agenda. They let the panel know that Tom Litster would give a PowerPoint presentation overview of the design enhancements. The displays could be discussed and reviewed during the dinner break. After the dinner break, Stacy will lead a discussion with the goal of reaching consensus on a design package.
Design Enhancements Presentation
Meeting Summary
Meeting purpose
Provide process update Review design elements and options Create design package Review next steps Open house and City Council Adoption
Tom Litster gave a PowerPoint Presentation that included the Design Enhancements to be discussed by the panel. The PowerPoint included: A Gateway Story The Gateway Opportunities Design Features to Discuss Opportunity for Bridge Enhancements o Design Studies for the Bridge o Design Challenges for the Landscape o Bridge Enhancement with Full Screening o Bridge Enhancement with Lighting o Decorative Fence for Bridge o Bridge Obelisks and the Landscape o Design Development Next Steps o Decorative Fence Without Obelisks Noise Wall Enhancements o Option 1: Colored Block Pattern o Option 2: Adding Glass Block Accents o Design Development Next Steps Gateway Streetscape Features o Sidewalk and Median Features o Design Development Next Steps Stormwater Facility Locations o NE Quadrant Detention Pond o NE Stormwater Detention Pond o NE Stormwater Detention Pond Screening o Stormwater Facility Enhancements o SW Quadrant Drainage Way o Design Development Next Steps Before the dinner break there was a brief discussion about the proposed SW Quadrant drainage-way wall. Alan said that to be included in the overall package, the wall the panel must determine it provides overall gateway enhancement. John Lucas let the group know that it would not improve access for maintenance. Maintenance of the berm is not ODOTs responsibility. There was some discussion of current maintenance. Leo Hillyer mentioned that currently he mows the grass on the berm.
Attendance
Jack Bigej Durrell Crays Tom Flomer Matt Gwynn Jim Hendryx Leo Hillyer Dick Koessel John Reinhardt Terri Sunderland Ruby Wolf
Project Team
Alan Fox, ODOT Ernest King, ODOT John Lucas, ODOT Mike Shippey, ODOT Kaitlin North, Otak Tom Litster, Otak Sam Beresky, JLA Public Involvement Stacy Thomas, JLA Public Involvement
Members of the Public in Attendance

Dan Brown, Woodburn Public Works Director Willis R. Grafe, The Estates Resident
Welcome and Opening

Meeting Purpose, agenda and introductions Alan Fox welcomed the panel, reviewed the meeting purpose, agenda and logistics. The overall meeting purpose was to provide a process update, review design elements and options, create a design package and to review the next steps in the process. He led introductions, including a new representative from The Estates, Dick Koessel. Alan mentioned that the project is on schedule for construction to begin in 2013 with an estimated cost of approximately $70.5 million roughly $20 million lower than expected. There is still a $5.5 million funding shortfall that is not expected to delay the project. The proposed enhancements are within the acceptable cost range and will be included in the project estimates. Since the last meeting in August, the ODOT Project Development Team has worked to refine the concept ideas from the previous panel meetings. Care was taken to meet safety, water quality, and operations requirements, which limited some design concept ideas. Alan asked the panel to assess the package as a set of enhancements that work together to create an attractive gateway for the interchange.
Roundtable Discussion
Stacy Thomas distributed a questionnaire. She asked panel members to take a moment to reflect on the enhancement options and to fill out the form. The panel initiated a general discussion about where the bridge enhancement designs came from. Many members expressed concern about not seeing any influence from the previous meetings in the bridge designs. Many members said that they had discussed the need for brick, and an old, urban, small-town feel for the designs. It was expressed that the green scrim option was modern and cold and did not come from the feedback at the previous meetings. Other panel members pointed out design elements that were discussed at previous meetings, including the Decorative Fence option (both the fencing arches and the obelisks).
1/4
February 16, 2012
2/4
February 16, 2012
23
Some members expressed their dislike of the green architectural scrim (Full Visual Screening option). They said that it is modern and contemporary and not Woodburn. There was an expression for the need to have the design be human scale, something to relate to, warm lighting, wrought iron fencing and other small town type enhancements. Tom mentioned that there were many ideas that came up at the previous meetings, particularly with respect to the second bridge rail option, which closely resembled some of the landform sketches from the previous workshop. He said that due to some of the technical limitations cited by ODOT, much of the landscaped area ideas expressing the natural and agricultural landscape themes would not be feasible. These ideas included the significant tree plantings and use of natural stone materials. Due to the limitations, the bridge enhancements need to create its own context. He also mentioned that some of the Victorian style ideas from the previous meeting have no context at I-5 or the immediate area, which could be considered a design challenge for those elements. Tom said that sidewalks and highway lighting are part of the bridge design (vs. this aesthetic process). The existing conditions and sidewalk widths posed real constraints for placing things like pedestrian scale light poles. Alan let the group know that he gave Tom and the Otak team creative license to take inspiration from the panels input and not reproduce the ideas exactly. The Victorian theme was discussed, along with others ideas such as the landform railing. The smaller elements associated with a typical streetscape may not be easily reproduced in a visually strong way on an interchange bridge. The scale is more vehicle-scale than pedestrian-scale. Dan Brown mentioned that the fiscal, maintainable, and constructability aspects of the design enhancements are important. He said the many visions and ideas from previous meetings might not have been constructible, affordable, or maintainable. John Lucas discussed the technical team limitations of the earlier design ideas. He mentioned that sight distance across the on-ramp loops was important for safety reasons. He said that no significant landscaping would be allowed in the majority of the space inside the loops. Stacy led a roundtable discussion of the bridge enhancement options. Discussion included: Decorative Fencing Option: Feels too urban/city Obelisks are out of place (3 comments) With planters perhaps with more landscaping, less imposing planters Combine with green screen to create green rolling hills imagery Needs better landscaping (not grass) (2 comments) Can be progressive (2 comments) Refine it with details such as lighting or landscaping Better lighting (architectural and streetscape) Full Visual Screening Option: Agricultural impression (grasses) Varied height is nice, more natural Soften planters Earth tones preferred Too contemporary, modern Shown walls planters ok Ground cover slope pavers instead? Trees, in more natural setting rather than planters Concern that grasses will not be maintained Avoid Unfinished grass look need additional landscaping to finish Closed/confined look Based on the comments and conversation, Stacy asked if the panel was comfortable moving the Decorative Fencing option forward with the following changes or additions to be reviewed at a 4th panel Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #3 3/4 February 16, 2012
meeting: remove the obelisks, show additional more finished landscaping, provide an illustration of night time architectural lighting, provide an illustration showing the cobra head light on the bridge. To determine the panels position, Stacy led a vote of whether to forward the Decorative Fencing option as noted above, using traffic signs to indicate their preference. Go meant the member supported the option, Yield was neutral or unsure, Stop was that there was no support for that option. Yes 7 Maybe 1 No 2 There was a suggestion to establish a trust fund that would provide funding for landscaping maintenance on a permanent basis. Alan said that he would look into that. The panel decided that if no funding was secured, the additional work on landscaping elements did not need to be pursued by the team. Stacy led voting for each of the enhancement options. Sound Wall options: Can you support the Colored Wall option? Yes 8 No 2 The two members that voted no said that they didnt like either wall option. There was a suggestion for a more natural looking grey stone option. Streetscape improvements: Textured pavement: Yes 10 Enhanced signal posts: Yes 9 Street Trees wherever possible: Yes 10 Stormwater detention facility screening: Yes - 10 SW Quadrant drainage-way wall: Yes 8 Maybe 1 No 1
Close
Alan said that a fourth meeting will be scheduled soon with the panel where a revised Decorative Fence option would be discussed. He expressed concern that the panel was voting for the lesser of two evils in the designs. He said that the design team will come back to the next meeting with a second, small town streetscape style design. Following the fourth meeting, a public open house will be scheduled. Alan let the panel know that the enhancements will need to be supported by members of the panel at both the public open house and a future city council meeting. He also mentioned that he will have a better idea of the financial picture of the bridge and will be able to share more concrete numbers at the next meeting. Stacy and Alan thanked the panel for their work and their feedback.
4/4
February 16, 2012
24

AAPAlternative Design Meeting February 23, 2012 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. Woodburn Public Works Building
Tom asked the group to identify what elements of the original landscape design they liked. The group felt the original design fully captured the panels input from the second workshop but understood why it was rejected by ODOT. The stacked stone fence, trees and river rock are the right elements. Conifers were mentioned as a tree type but the panel indicated they were open to other species. Tom reminded the group that these elements could only be incorporated in the shadow areas. It was noted that the panel intended the landscaping to take the harshness out of the structure. Another member added that they didnt want the landscaping to provide any hiding spots that would encourage transient use or camping. Accordingly, there should be no privacy created in the landscape areas. The group discussed what could happen outside the shadow areas. Tom said that no structure taller than 4 is allowed. Rivers of rock would be acceptable but stacked stone walls or trees would not be. Shrubs taller than 4 are okay since they do not pose a safety risk but only if they do not block sight lines. The group reiterated their earlier concern about maintenance of landscaping especially related to mowing a grassy area. It was agreed that the design team would update the landscape design to incorporate as many of the elements discussed today as possible to fit within ODOTs technical requirements. It was also suggested that the whole panel see the original landscape design submitted to ODOT at the panels next meeting so that they would understand and appreciate that the design team had listened to the Panel and attempted to implement its input. Bridge Structure Tom showed the group some bridge medallions (cut-outs) for feedback. The group responded positively to the general idea of medallions. Lighting was discussed in detail. Pedestrian scale lighting with a lamp look was suggested possibly turban style globes similar to the downtown lights. The lights along Hwy 99 in Oregon City were also mentioned as an example. Tom noted that poles for any such fixtures would have to be mounted outside the fencing but that just about any type of pole can be mounted. He reminded the group that pedestrian scale lights would provide accent lighting only and would not replace the need for standard roadway lighting (cobra fixtures). Another panel member said that architectural uplighting on the exterior of the bridge was important and the panel needed to see both these elements illustrated for both of the bridge enhancement options at the next meeting. Tom said that uplighting was about the cost of pedestrian scale lighting. Members expressed different preferences for architectural uplighting and pedestrian lighting. The idea of fewer lamps possibly at the bridge ends was suggested because excessive cost becomes an issue. Designs showing both with relative cost factors would be helpful in addressing this decision at the next meeting. Some panel members indicated that the idea of a bridge enhancement capturing the feel of the downtown renewal would support the community theme described as the new old-time look. Natural brick and square fronts are the main elements. Many ideas were tossed out including developing bridgeheads that capture the theme, using a straight-line picket fence concept, and extending the design from the bridge down OR 214 to demonstrate the connection between the structure and the community (for example, the use of pedestrian scale lighting). The transit station and sound walls can also incorporate elements of the adopted bridge enhancement to create design continuity. The station shelters and kiosks may need to be redesigned to coordinate with the design option selected by the Panel. Next Steps Tom will develop the ideas heard today and have a second bridge enhancement option to present at the next AAP meeting. The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 4th. Attendees expressed their appreciation to Alan and Tom for calling this meeting. Everyone felt satisfied that they had been heard and looked forward to seeing the updated decorative fencing enhancement as well as the new design option at the next Panel meeting.
Meeting Summary
Meeting purpose
Articulate a second bridge enhancement option for AAP consideration at the next meeting
Attendance
Jack Bigej Durrell Crays Jim Hendryx Leo Hillyer Charlie Piper John Reinhardt Ruby Wolf
Project Team
Alan Fox, ODOT Kaitlin North, Otak Tom Litster, Otak Stacy Thomas, JLA Public Involvement Vaughn Brown, JLA Public Involvement
Others in Attendance
Dan Brown, Woodburn Public Works Director Jim Cox, Woodburn City Council (at end of meeting)
Welcome and Opening

Opening Alan Fox thanked everyone for attending. He explained that this meeting is a follow-up to the new design option that he had promised at the last AAP (Panel) meeting. He noted the rejection of the full visual screening bridge enhancement design option means that it will not be carried forward. As agreed-to at the last meeting, the arches option will be carried forward with suggested changes (no obelisks, architectural uplighting and more landscaping). The design team wants to ensure that this new design option represents the vision of the Panel members as fully as possible. To that end, the goal of this meeting is to hear from the panel members present regarding what they want to see in the new option, which will be presented at the panels next meeting. Alan reported that the whole panel had been invited to this meeting by email and that he was happy to see so many panel members present. Alan said that he understood why some members felt that panel guidance wasnt followed when designing the bridge enhancement options. He hoped that the meeting would restore a solid working relationship based on renewed confidence that the design team is listening to the Panels input. He added that the landscaping design that was initially presented to ODOT technical staff would be shared with those in attendance today. Alan said that in retrospect, the original landscape designs should have been shared at the last meeting as a demonstration of how the designers had been inspired by the panels guidance, even though the designs were ultimately rejected by ODOT for safety reasons. Landscaping Tom Litster showed the original landscape design submittal that was rejected by ODOT for engineering and safety reasons. He talked about how the need for adequate sight lines and power line restrictions severely limited planting heights and areas. Tree plantings are limited to shadow areas near the bridge itself in both north and south landscape areas. The north area is even more limited by the power lines. Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary AAP Design Mini-Workshop 1/2 February 23, 2012
Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary AAP Design Mini-Workshop
2/2
February 23, 2012
25

Aesthetic Advisory Panel Meeting #4 April 4, 2012 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. Wellspring Medical Center
contractor will be responsible for landscaping maintenance for 2-3 years after construction is complete, 1 providing a buffer before the City of Woodburn would have to take over. It was mentioned that Dan Brown has maintenance funding ideas that he will pursue but due to restrictions on what SDCs can be used for, it is unlikely that the earmarked money for construction of the interchange can be used to pay for landscaping maintenance. Dan Brown urged the panel to let the City Council know how important the landscaping maintenance funding source is to the entire project. Alan reviewed project funding and costs: Funding o Lower costs reduced the shortfall to $5.5 Million o Instructed to add in prior ROW funds expended raised shortfall to $9.2 Million o Funding not expected to delay the project Aesthetic upgrades, funding and costs o Cost estimates underway but not complete, pending resolution of ROW costs Project cost estimate has a placeholder budget of $2 Million for aesthetics Optimistic that aesthetic costs will be within that budget Alan reviewed a section of the committee charter, including: Participants are expected to refrain from characterizing the views of other participants, especially at public meetings and in communication with the City Council, non-participant stakeholders and the press. Consensus outcomes are desired, but not required until the final workshop. At workshops prior to the final workshop, where the group can not reach consensus, the full range of options and perspectives will be carried forward as input to the next workshop until the final prioritized list of recommendations is developed. At the final workshop, ODOT will seek Panel consensus on the final prioritized list of recommendations. At this workshop, consensus is defined as an outcome every Panel member present can live with and support. At the final workshop, if consensus can not be reached on the inclusion of a specific design recommendation or the priorities of specific recommendations, a majority vote of the members present will qualify that recommendation to be included or priority established. Each Panel member shall have one vote, and shall cast the vote as a whole; i.e., the vote is not divisible. Members present comprise a quorum. Only members present can vote. Vaughn Brown let the panel know that after Toms presentation and dinner, he will be leading the group through a discussion about the design options. He said that the panel should work together to get behind a single option that best works for everyone.
Meeting Summary
Meeting purpose
Provide process update Review design packages and options Reach consensus on the bridge design Review next steps Open house and City Council adoption
Attendance
Jack Bigej Durrell Crays Tom Flomer Matt Gwynn Jim Hendryx Leo Hillyer Dick Koessel John Reinhardt Charlie Piper Maria Aguilar Ruby Wolfer
Project Team
Alan Fox, ODOT Ernest Kim, ODOT John Lucas, ODOT Mike Shippey, ODOT Liantao XU ODOT Kaitlin North, Otak Tom Litster, Otak Sam Beresky, JLA Public Involvement Vaughn Brown, JLA Public Involvement
Woodburn Staff
Dan Brown, Woodburn Public Works Director
Welcome and Opening

Alan Fox welcomed the panel, reviewed the meeting purpose, agenda and logistics. The main purpose of this meeting was to provide a process update, review design packages and options, reach consensus on the bridge design and to go over the next steps in the project process. Alan also introduced Liantao Xu,, the new bridge designer for ODOT. Alan mentioned that earlier in the day he met with the Woodburn Mayor and City Administrator about future landscaping maintenance funding. Alan said that the objective of the meeting was to secure a commitment that the city would proactively pursue a funding source for the landscaping of the interchange. City Administrator Scott Derickson said that the City Administrator will support the vision of the panel for landscaping and will advocate for a dedicated maintenance funding source over the decades. Alan said that the city has recently had layoffs and budget issues. He commended them for taking the long-view approach on the project and committing to seeking a funding source for the maintenance of landscaping in the project area. In addition, Alan said that ODOTs construction
Design Enhancements Presentation

Tom Litster gave a PowerPoint presentation that included the Design Enhancements to be discussed by the panel. Since the last workshop, the project team convened a meeting with panel members to develop an alternate design package. In addition, the ODOT technical team reviewed each feature and they began to address cost factors for aesthetic upgrades. He let the panel know that prioritization would not be necessary as, more or less, features in both options are within the $2,000,000 budget placeholder. The PowerPoint included: The Design Process Understanding the Context The I-5 Experience The Hwy 24/219 Experience It has since been determined that ODOT can only fund one year of maintenance through its construction contracts. A separate contracting procedure is being sought to extend maintenance by ODOT to a total of three years.
1
1/5
April 4, 2012
2/5
April 4, 2012
26
Elements of the New Bridge (graphic) Challenges for a Pedestrian Streetscape Bridge Enhancement Option 1 Landform Option (graphics from numerous angles and with a variety of lighting options) Considerations o Materials and fabrication for the fence o Cost and weight of the fence o Cost and technical issues for concrete treatments o Cost of architectural lighting o Maintenance Bridge Enhancements Option 2 Victorian Option (graphics from numerous angles and with a variety of lighting options) Considerations o Materials and fabrication for the fence o Cost and weight of the fence o Cost and technical issues for concrete treatments o Cost of lighting o Maintenance Streetscape Opportunities Bridge Streetscape Context (graphics for each option) Ornamental lights for the roadway Planning level budgets o Opinion of probable costs o Design refinements can change that opinion o Value engineering is not uncommon o Maintenance costs are a separate consideration Clarifying questions: Why didnt the landform option include pedestrian lights? o Tom said that the design team thought that pedestrian lights would not fit in the context of the landform arches. Pedestrian lighting would be from the highway lighting, regardless of the decorative fencing option preferred. Will the intersection to the west of the interchange receive the same aesthetic upgrades as the intersection to the east? o Yes. Will the PGE power lines be placed underground? o Alan said that it is very expensive to underground the power lines. He hadnt talked about it much but let the panel know that undergrounding the power lines was an option but that it would possibly take up the entire aesthetic upgrade budget. He mentioned that there are nearly 1,000 utility conflicts in the project area. Leo Hillyer said that eventually the power lines will be put underground and that this committee should not focus on that. The Panel moved on to other subjects, thus declining to pursue this issue further. Is the Landform option cheaper? o Tom said that they are roughly the same but if the decorative streetlights were used in the Victorian option, there would be an increase in maintenance costs to service those. Also, the Victorian option will need to be steel rather than aluminum, which could potentially need more long-term maintenance. Does ODOT have a bias toward the Landform option? It seemed that the drawbacks were more prominently talked about for the Victorian option. o Tom said that the team has no bias but wanted the panel to understand the differences between the two options. Alan said that it is the responsibility of the team to point out the differences and drawbacks of the options so the panel can make an informed choice.
Vaughn explained the discussion and decision process. He will lead the roundtable discussion through the first round. Each member will get a couple of minutes to highlight their impressions of both options. He asked the members to keep their comments concise and not to forget talking about the positive aspects of the options. On the second round of discussion, he will ask for each members preference in one of five categories: Fully support the Victorian option Okay with either option but leaning towards the Victorian option Okay with either option Okay with either option but leaning towards the Landform option Fully support the Landform option Due to time constraints, many panel members voted on the first round of discussion: Tom Flomer said that he likes the color and form of the Landform option but did not feel that it was connected to Woodburn. He liked the streetscape of the Victorian option but was hoping for a newer interpretation of traditional design and a better accommodation of pedestrians. Jack Bigej asked if there was any way to soften the sign bridge, perhaps rounding the corners and having the color match the Landform option. Verticality it does not fit with the arches in the landform option. He said that he could live with either option but will prefer the Landform option if the sign bridges can fit better into the design. Ruby Wolfer said that she was leaning towards the Landform option because it feels more open and modern. She likes the uplighting option and the connection to the surrounding landscape. She suggested that if the Victorian option was chosen, they should not use the decorative lighting, as it is an added maintenance worry. Maria Aguilar preferred the Landform option. She liked the earth tones and the connection to the hills. She said that the design is more attention grabbing than the Victorian option. John Reinhardt said that he had been to every meeting and appreciated the team providing a second viable option but he preferred the Landform option fully. Leo Hillyer said that he also attended all of the meetings and prefers the Landform option because it will be different from many other freeway overpasses. He hopes that the sign bridges can be adapted to match the bridge option in shape and color. Jim Hendryx thanked the team for the illustrations of the options. He asked if the Victorian fence could be reduced in size to make it more pedestrian scale. Tom said that it could be reduced in height slightly but would need to be taller than the protective mesh fence (+/- 11ft). Jim said that he is leaning towards the Landform option mainly because it is more open and better for pedestrians. Charlie Piper said that everyone who knows him knows that he likes more traditional architecture. He said that his familys business has been in Woodburn for over 90 years. He is less concerned with travelers on I-5 and more concerned with what the citizens of Woodburn feel as they cross the bridge. He mentioned that the Victorian fence would feel like a jail, he preferred the Landform option, as it is more open. Initially he also thought that the Victorian lights could be carried down the streets and could create a nice theme, but he felt that the lights were lost in the highway-scale retail. Durrell Crays said that he likes the history of Woodburn. He felt that the Victorian fence provided an emotional impact and connection to history. The Victorian theme can be carried into the city, eventually, while the Landform does not have that option. He favors the Victorian fence. Durrell also commented about a perceived bias, he felt that the team displayed a bias about which option they preferred. Alan said that there was no bias but wanted the panel to understand the challenges and limitations of the options so they could make an informed choice. Alan said that he will continue the bias discussion off-line. Matt Gwynn said that the Victorian option looks too institutional. He favors the Landform option, especially if the mesh protective fence can be incorporated into the design. Dick Koessel said that he prefers the Landform option because it has a cleaner look and will be easier to maintain. He also felt that the Victorian fence looked too institutional.
Roundtable Discussion
Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #4 3/5 April 4, 2012
4/5
April 4, 2012
27
It was noted that overall the panel was leaning heavily towards the Landform option with all but one member being neutral or leaning towards the Landform option. There was a discussion among the panel members about the need to come to consensus, to leave the meeting as a unified committee. Leo noted that the maintenance of the Landform option would be slightly easier and that the rolling hills were an option that had been discussed since the first meeting. Alan let the panel know that the project team had no vested interest in either option but did want to ensure that the committee could select an option and stand behind it. Durrell mentioned that he is a believer in democracy and, while he may have a different opinion, he will not oppose the Landform option and will go with the rest of the group in supporting the Landform option. It was noted that overall, the committee came to a consensus with the Landform option moving forward as the preferred option. There was general agreement that softening of the sign bridges, incorporating them into the design would be ideal.
Public Open House & Comment Summary
Close
Alan said that the team will schedule an open house for late April or early May. The purpose of the open house would be for the public to review the design, to offer suggestions and thoughts about the Landform option, and to ensure there were no fatal errors from their perspective. There will be comment cards available at the open house to allow the public to submit feedback. He asked the panel members to participate and attend the open house. The team will provide a short orientation before the open house and hoped the panel members could participate in the open house by informally sharing their perspectives with the members of the public. The panel suggested that the auditorium at The Estates would be ideal location for the open house. The Estates also has a newsletter that could help advertise the open house. Dan Brown said that he has had success in outreach to the Spanish-speaking populations of Woodburn by advertising on the radio. It was also suggested to use the Chamber of Commerce 2as a resource for outreach. In addition, the project team should get feedback on the Landform option at the Chambers Greetings events on Fridays. It is the most effective way to reach the business community. Alan also said that aesthetic design package with the Landform option will be presented to the Woodburn City Council in June. 3 Vaughn and Alan thanked the panel for their work and their feedback. Durrell said that he appreciated ODOTs responsiveness on this project.
Prepared by: JLA Public Involvement April 30, 2012
A presentation to the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce has now been scheduled for May 9th.
The City Council meeting at which the Panels recommendatons will be presented has now been established as June 11th.
5/5
April 4, 2012
28
Woodburn Interchange Open House Summary

A variety of communication vehicles were used to notify the broadest audience possible about the Open House. Display ads in both Spanish and English were placed in the Woodburn Independent. A media release was sent to the ODOT Region 2 media outlets. Public service announcements were sent to 2 Spanish speaking radio stations in the Woodburn area. The City placed ads on Spanish radio as well. A notice was also posted on the ODOT JTA project website. The public was invited to attend the Open House in person, hear a project overview from the project team, look at informational displays, and complete a comment card. Sixty six people attended the Open House the evening of April 24, 2012 from 4:30 7:30 at the Estates Golf Club. Of those 66 attendees, 21 completed a comment card. The purpose of the Open House was to showcase the Interchange design package selected by the Aesthetics Advisory Panel. The Panels preferred design package will be forwarded to Woodburn City Council for their consideration and adoption. Alan Fox introduced the Aesthetics Advisory Panel members and project staff and city staff in attendance. He then presented the project schedule showing utility work beginning this year and major construction from 2013 2015. He announced that the Interchange and Park& Ride will cost about $75 million. Even though there is a small funding shortfall, ODOT does not see that as an obstacle to getting the project underway. Victor Alvarado from ODOT was in attendance to answer right of way questions. Alan reviewed the design process which included Research & Analysis, Design, and Engineering Design for Construction. Design considerations included context (natural and man made), materials and fabrication, technical/operational standards (i.e. vehicle safety and visibility on loop ramps, cost, weight, and technical issues for concrete treatments, architectural lighting, and maintenance). Alan reviewed the recommended landform design concept package. This concept is centered on bridge and loop ramps suggesting the physical setting the Woodburn area. The concept includes suggestions for intersecting arches on the bridge and landscape terraces, with trees and landscaping if they can be maintained. Other recommendations include noise walls, landscaping at a water detention facility, and a storm trench embankment.
Besides a detailed map, is it possible someone to come to Panor and use a spray paint to show street row. In other words how much will be left of our trees, shrubs etc.
Murals/Sound walls/Landscaping
No murals, invitation for vandalism and graffiti. No murals. Blockware is fine as is. Is Senior Estates going to have input on murals and our development? No mural on 214/219 sound wall. Landscape at freeway exits to discourage homeless campers. Please no mural an invitation for vandalism poor choice for future years. The I 5 sound wall should be extended to the Senior Estates RV Park.
Design feedback
Bridge side arches are impressive (from the freeway) when crossing the bridge the smooth lines are disrupted by the square; rectangle buttresses supports for the signs and lane designators. Have you tried or thought about rounding those supports to conform in aesthetics to the sides. In that way the entire project would be an arched gateway into Woodburn. Your bike path over the freeway is a killer. Who would ever want to use that lane! Please visualize 2 trucks and a bike in the middle. Making the loop ramps are not the smartest thing to do. So what if people have to cross traffic to make a turn. The way it is, is safer than the way you are thinking of, but you dont care. Please continue with this 5 lanes on 214 to Park Ave. Otherwise backups will continue to occur. NO SIDEWALKS on Oregon Way.
General
Both ODOT and City of Woodburn should be proud of the method taken to reach agreement and harmony in the project study. I was with FHWA when Interstate was built, and am proud of both participants in this project study. Good format Very positive meeting Excellent presentation, congratulations to all those individuals working on this project, will believe it when I see it. In my opinion all bases were covered. The meeting was good.
Public Comments
Right Of Way
When will the right of way people make offers on the property involved, I travel during the summer, but I can make arrangements to be here, if I know when. Good explanations, I would like to know the monetary reimbursement for loss of my easement.
Woodburn Interchange Project Open House Public Open House Summary
Woodburn Interchange Project Open House Public Open House Summary
29

Woodburn Interchange Draft Gateway Design Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Woodburn Interchange Draft Gateway Design Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Woodburn Interchange Project C o n t e x t S e n s i t i v e a n d S u s t a i n a b l e S o l u t i o n s ( C S 3) Draft Gateway Design Report

This page intentionally left blank

Context Sensitive Solutions

Gateway Design Concept

JLA Public Involvement

Context Sensitive Solutions

This page intentionally left blank

Context Sensitive Solutions

Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 1 Table of Contents .................................................................................3

Connected by Landscape Connected by Transportation Connected as Communities

Gateway Design Concept ...................................................................7

Context Sensitive Solutions

Sound Wall Enhancement

Stormwater Facility Enhancement

Sound Wall Enhancement

Highway 219 Highway 214 Stormwater Facility Enhancement Streetscape Enhancement

Woodburn Interchange Gateway Design

Context Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions Process

Hands On Panel Workshops

Context Sensitive Solutions

Panel Workshop - Gateway Sketch

Connected by Landscape, Connected as Communities

Panel Workshop - Landscape Sketch

Gateway Design Concept

Gateway Design Concept

Gateway Design Concept

Soft Glow Uplighting

Decorative Lighting of Freeway Bridge in New Mexico

Soft Glow Uplighting with Accent Lighting

Decorative Lighting of Freeway Bridge in Minnesota

Gateway Design Concept

Bridge Features and Landscaping Visually Complement One Another

Panel Workshop - Creating Terraces Sketch

Panel Workshop - Importance of Trees Sketch

Hillsides of the Valley Inspired the Landscape Design

Corten Plate Steel Creates Landscape Terraces

Gateway Design Concept

Context Sensitive Solutions

Gateway Design Concept

Patterns of Colored Concrete Block as Visual Enhancement

Colors and Textures Possible with Concrete Block

Approximately 4,000 of Sound Wall

Gateway Design Concept

Continuous and Uniform Patterns of Color and Texture

More Diffuse and Irregular Patterns of Color

Wall Panels with a Color Pattern for Art Installations

Context Sensitive Solutions

Gateway Design Concept

Landscaping to Visually Screen a Stormwater Detention Pond

Primary Stormwater Facilities for the Interchange

A Simple Concrete Block Wall to Visually Improve a Drainageway Embankment

Gateway Design Concept

Maintenance of Gateway Design Elements

Woodburn Interchange Project Aesthetic Enhancement Budgets

This page intentionally left blank

Context Sensitive Solutions

Context Sensitive Solutions

Woodburn Interchange Project

Design Opportunities and Constraints

Welcome and Opening

Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #1

June 24, 2011

Woodburn Interchange Project Draft Summary Aesthetic Advisory Panel #1