Appendix L Visual Impact Analysis...areas. A visual impact is caused when a project results in a significant change from the landscape setting and is not consistent with viewer expectations

Appendix L Visual Impact Analysis

Tompkins County Sub-Residency Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport

Town of Lansing Tompkins County, NY

Visual Impact Assessment

201

Prepared for: New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)

Central New York Region 333 E. Washington Street

Syracuse, NY 13202

Prepared by:

3 Winners Circle Albany, NY 12205

CHA File:34701

Visual Impact Assessment TOMPKINS SUB-RESIDENCY AT ITHACA TOMPKINS REGIONAL AIRPORT

AIP GRANT NO. 3-36-0102-093-2016 Page 2 NYS DOT PIN 3M00.18

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Location and Description ............................................................................................... 5

II. Landscape Setting ...................................................................................................................... 9

III. Potential Visual ResourcesA. Potential Viewer Groups .................................................................................................... 10 B. Desktop Visual Resource Inventory .................................................................................... 11 C. Creation of Preliminary Viewshed Map .............................................................................. 11 D. Field Investigation ............................................................................................................. 12 E. Selection of Key Views ....................................................................................................... 14 F. Final Viewshed Map .......................................................................................................... 15

IV. Impact Assessment Criteria and Evaluation MaterialsA. Impact Assessment Definitions .......................................................................................... 17

a. Visibility and Exposure ............................................................................................... 17a. Visual Character ........................................................................................................ 18b. Visual Contrast .......................................................................................................... 18c. Visual Quality ............................................................................................................ 18

B. Evaluation Materials 1. Photosimulations ...................................................................................................... 182. Cross Sections ........................................................................................................... 19

V. Key View Impact Evaluation A. Visibility and Viewer Exposure ............................................................................................. 20 B. Roadways Adjacent to Site

1. Key View 1 ..................................................................................................................... 212. Key View 2 ..................................................................................................................... 233. Key View 3 ..................................................................................................................... 23

B. Historic Resources 1. 16 Hillcrest Road ............................................................................................................ 27

a. Key View 4 ............................................................................................................. 27b. Key View 5 ............................................................................................................. 34c. Key View 5 (Evaluation of Nighttime Conditions) .................................................... 34d. Key View 6 ............................................................................................................. 38e. Key View 7 ............................................................................................................. 45

2. 8 Hillcrest Road .............................................................................................................. 48a. Key View 8 ............................................................................................................... 48b. Key View 9 ............................................................................................................... 54c. Key View 10 ............................................................................................................. 54d. Key View 10 (Evaluation of Nighttime Conditions) ................................................... 54

VI. Design Mitigation Measures 61

VII. Conclusion 62



List of Tables (On Page): Table 1. Project Components .................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Potential Aesthetic Resources ................................................................................ 11 Table 3. Resource Visibility .................................................................................................. 14 Table 4. Key Views ............................................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Viewer Group Exposure ......................................................................................... 20 Table 6. Project Visibility ..................................................................................................... 22 List of Figures (Following Page) Figure 1. Regional Location Map 5 Figure 2. Local Project Location Map 5 Figure 3. Site Plan 5 Figure 4. Preliminary Viewshed Map 12 Figure 5. Final Viewshed Map 15 Figure 6. Key View 1 – Existing (Not Visible) 21 Figure 7. Key View 2-Existing 23 Figure 8. Key View 2- Proposed 23 Figure 9. Key View 3 Existing (Not Visible) 23 Figure 10. Photo Location/ Section Location Map- 16 Hillcrest Road 27 Figure 11. Sections Toward Sub-Residency and Salt Barn 27 Figure 12. Sections Toward Sub-Residency and Salt Barn 27 Figure 13. Key View 4 - Existing 27 Figure 14. Key View 4 – Proposed-No Screening 27 Figure 15. Key View 4 – Proposed with Screening 27 Figure 16. Key View 5 – Existing 35 Figure 17. Key View 5 – Proposed-No Screening 35 Figure 18. Key View 5 – Proposed with Screening 35 Figure 19. Key View 6 – Existing 40 Figure 20. Key View 6 – Proposed No Screening 40 Figure 21. Key View 6 – Proposed with Screening 40 Figure 22. Key View 6 – Proposed Nighttime - No Screening 40 Figure 23. Key View 6 – Proposed Nighttime with Screening 40 Figure 24. Key View 7 – Existing 47 Figure 25. Key View 7 – Proposed No Screening 47 Figure 26. Photo Location/Section Location Map -8 Hillcrest Road 49 Figure 27. Section View toward Sub-Residency and Salt Barn 49 Figure 28. Key View 8 – Existing 49 Figure 29. Key View 8 – Proposed-No Screening 49 Figure 30. Key View 8 – Proposed with Screening 49 Figure 31. Key View 9 – Existing 55 Figure 32. Key View 9 – Proposed No Screening 55 Figure 33. Key View 10 – Existing (Not Visible) 55



List of Figures (continued)

Figure 34. Key View 11 – Existing 55Figure 35. Key View 11 – Proposed No Screening 55 Figure 36. Key View 11 – Proposed with Screening 55 Figure 37. Key View 11 – Proposed Nighttime- No Screening 55 Figure 38. Key View 11 – Proposed Nighttime with Screening ................................................... 55

Appendices

Appendix A- August 27 Field Investigation Photos Appendix B- Views from Project Site to Historic Properties Appendix C- Site Lighting Plan Appendix D- Detailed Photosimluation Creation Memo



I. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed Tompkins County Sub-Residency project site is proposed to be located within the Town of Lansing, NY at the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. More specifically, the project is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection of Warren Road (NY Route 121) and Hillcrest Road and approximately 2500 feet north of the Airport’s primary runway (14-32). Please refer Figure 1- Regional Location Map and Figure 2- Local Project Location Map.

The proposed project consists of office space, workshop space, truck parking and salt storage on approximately 15.55 acres. It should be noted that projects components are located near restricted airspace and will have height limitations places upon them. The approximate square footages and heights of the various components are as follows:

Table 1-Project Components Component Approximate Size in Square Feet (sf) ( Height) Sub-Residency Maintenance Building 30,000 sf (30’-6” +/-ht) Cold Storage 5,000 sf (30’ +/-ht) Salt Barn 8,200 sf (49’-10” +/- ht) Hopper Building (covered lean-to) 2,500 sf (17’ +/- ht)

The proposed maintenance building will have vehicle storage for 10 trucks, a loader, and tow plow. The building will also have a double depth mechanical bay and a single depth, drive-thru truck washing bay. It also includes an office area (three rooms), lunch/break room (30 people), toilet/shower/locker rooms, storage rooms and mechanical/electrical rooms.

The site will also contain stockpile areas for pipe, stone and millings, and ancillary site features including a fueling station, parking for 40 vehicles, and stormwater management facilities. The project will require construction of an access drive from Warren Road and the extension of utilities. Refer to Figure 3 – Site Plan for project component locations on the 15.55 acre site.

This VIA is intended to evaluate the potential impacts to viewers engaged in varying activities within the study area upon completion and operation of the proposed Tompkins County Sub-Residency project.

FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

Project Location

± Scale 1" = 4000'

FIGURE 2 LOCAL PROJECT LOCATION MAP

Project Location

Scale 1" = 2000'±

SITE

PLA

NFI

GURE

3

COLD STORAGE

STORAGESTORAGE

HOPPER

PROPANE TANKS

EMPLOYEE PARKING

FUEL ISLAND

GRADING LIMITS

16 HILLCREST ROAD

*INSTALL HEIGHT OF PROPOSED SCREENING VEGETATION: 10-14’ FOR TREES AND 4’ FOR SHRUBS.

PROPERTY LINE

PROPOSED 5’ BERM SCREENING VEGETATION*

THOMAS BISHOPBARN REMNANTS

8 HILLCREST ROAD

SUB-RESIDENCY FACILITY

PROPOSED STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT AREA

PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA

SALTBARN



II. LANDSCAPE SETTING

Three components are considered in the identification of the landscape setting that forms the basis for viewer expectations within the project area. These are vegetation, topography and built form. The specific nature of these components can vary throughout the study area; however, the repetition of these characteristics within the study area defines the landscape setting from other areas. A visual impact is caused when a project results in a significant change from the landscape setting and is not consistent with viewer expectations.

Vegetation distribution can range from densely wooded areas, which provide a year-round buffer, to deciduous areas which limit or enhance views on a seasonal basis. Also, vegetation distribution includes open areas where the vegetation does not define or enhance a view. Within the project area there is generally maturing evergreen and deciduous vegetation 50-60’ tall within the area surrounding the project site.

Landform, or topography, defines the limits of views to and from the site as well as defining the physical and visual character of the study area. The topography contributes to the regional landscape setting by enclosing spaces, defining viewing distances and creating different viewer opportunities. The topography within and adjacent to the project site is gently sloping from northeast to southwest.

Built form/structures can affect a viewer’s visual experience and can be generally defined industrial, commercial or residential. Within the project area most structure can be considered residential in nature however there are commercial buildings located at 8 Hillcrest Road that stand in contrast to other built form.



III. POTENTIAL VISUAL RESOURCES

A. Viewer Groups

The evaluation of the potential visual impacts is dependent upon factors such as who is viewing the project and their location, the activity the viewers are involved in when viewing the project, the duration of the view, viewer expectations, and the overall scale of the project. Identification of the viewer groups allows the project to be evaluated in sub-categories, applicable to the user group, which defines the length of the view.

For the purposes of this proposed project site, four different viewer groups, their potential activities and viewer locations have been identified as follows:

The traveler group would include commuters, tourists, commercial traffic and those doing errands within the study area, primarily along Warren Road, Hillcrest Road and Warren Drive. Travelers would generally have filtered views of the project site due to their speed, topographic changes and vegetation. This viewer group would be engaged in an activity that requires focusing on the road, signage and other vehicles so views would be secondary and observed peripherally. The exception to this would be tourists who are more likely to have passengers who expect to enjoy the views and are drawn to the area for the views.

The bicyclist group would include tourists on casual rides expecting to enjoy the views and local residents riding for exercise. The potential viewing locations would be from State, County and local roads. Bicyclists would have filtered and unfiltered views of the project site due to their speed, topographic changes and vegetation. This viewer group would be engaged in an activity that requires focusing on the route but also permits being able to enjoy the views as conditions allow (vehicular traffic, shoulder conditions, etc.).

The property owner/resident group would include surrounding properties with the group engaging in both indoor and outdoor daily activities (lawn mowing, snow blowing, recreation, etc.) The property owner group would have both filtered and unfiltered views due to vegetation.

The duration of visibility was determined using the posted speed limit for motorists and by using generally accepted standards for bicyclists as follows:

Duration of Visibility = Distance ÷ Speed, therefore: Traveler @ 55 mph = 0.01539 mi./sec. (80.7 ft/sec.) Traveler @ 45 mph = 0.0125 mi./sec. (66 ft/sec.) Bicyclists @ 12 mph = 0.003 mi./ sec (17.6 ft/sec.) Residents @ 365 days, 24 hours/day

For example, a car traveling at 45 mph with a view of a building for 0.5 miles (2,640 feet) would have a view duration of 38 seconds (0.5 ÷ 0.013 = 38.46 seconds).

In calculating the duration of the visibility on roadways, the length of visibility represents the point at which the site becomes visible to when the viewer is perpendicular with the site, or the view is obstructed by vegetation. The viewing limit was defined in this manner since the viewer’s focus is considered to be forward. The use of this limit does not indicate that the overall limits of



visibility end at this point but rather that the impact to the viewer group is substantially diminished thereafter.

B. Desktop Visual Resource Inventory

To determine potential aesthetic resources desktop research was conducted into the following sources:

Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) system hosted by NYS SHPO NYS DOT Scenic Roads National Natural Landmarks National Park System Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan Google Maps for local parks and public places

During this review the following potential visual resources were identified as having potential views to the project site.

Table 2– Potential Visual Resources

Name of Resource Type of Resource

1405 Hanshaw Rd Residential- NR Listed



Eight Square Schoolhouse Cultural- NR Listed

Rogue’s Harbor Inn Cultural- NR Listed

Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway Cultural- Scenic

8 Hillcrest Road Residential/National Register Eligible (NRE)


Thomas Bishop Barn Storage/National Register Eligible (NRE)

Of these potential resources, three were adjacent to the project site. The properties at 8 and 16 Hillcrest, as well as the Thomas Bishop Barn, located on site, were selected for further evaluation and an architectural survey to determine their final status was conducted by NYSDOT.

C. Creation of Preliminary Viewshed Map

The next task within the VIA was to determine if any of the potential viewer groups, and subsequent visual resources would have potential views to the project site and those areas where topography would completely obstruct the viewer’s ability to see the project site. To accomplish



this, we conducted a preliminary viewshed analysis to identify the maximum theoretical limits of the viewshed. This analysis evaluates line-of-site sections from the vantage point (viewer) to the proposed object (target) considering only existing topography. Obstructions from vegetation are not considered during this evaluation since the locations and heights of trees vary within the study area. A three-mile radius was chosen as the outer boundary of the study area due to the height of the building and the relative flatness of the surrounding topography. The target was chosen as a point 49 feet above ground located at the approximate center of the proposed maintenance building. Choosing a target higher than the proposed building is conservative in that it recognizes inaccuracies within the digital elevation models (DEM) and allows a larger search area during the field assessment stage of the study. Using these parameters, ArcGIS was utilized to run the viewshed analysis and produce the draft viewshed map (Figure 4). Figure 4 shows only the section out to the three-mile boundary in where a potential aesthetic resource could have a view of the potential project site. No other resources were identified within the three-mile radius as having a potential view to the project site.

In addition to conducting the viewshed analysis we also created a 49 foot tall building on the proposed site in Google Earth Pro and toggled the terrain layer on, which includes both approximate terrain and existing vegetation. This, along with the draft viewshed map, we were able to gain sense of where the building may be visible from. Refer to Figure 4 for the draft viewshed map.

D. Field Investigation Procedures

A field investigation was conducted on August 27, 2018 to ground truth observations made during the creation of the preliminary viewshed map and Google Earth Pro observations. During the site visit, roads in areas from which the proposed building could theoretically be seen were driven to confirm the height of vegetation and the actual visibility of the site. Photography taken during this site visit would be used to produce the evaluation materials. All photographs from this field visit can be found in Appendix A – August 27 Field Investigation Photos

A secondary site visit was conducted on December 4, 2018 to obtain photographs from 16 Hillcrest and 8 Hillcrest Road, both National Register Eligible (NRE) sites

During both site visits imagery was taken with high megapixel cameras to record the visual environment. During the December visit a Cannon DSLR was used and horizontal control was placed in the views to allow for future use in evaluation materials.

Based on the results of the field investigation, it should be noted that the following potential resources that were identified during the desktop survey, representing the residential viewer groups were investigated and results were as follows:

PREL

IMIN

ARY

VIEW

SHED

MAP

FIGU

RE 4



Table 3- Resource Visibility

Additionally, it was determined that filtered views from Warren Road and Warren Drive may be available to the traveler and bicyclist viewer groups would need further evaluation. It should be noted that due to its deteriorated condition, the Thomas Bishop Barn collapsed during a heavy snow storm followed by rain, just prior to the December 4, 2018 site visit. For the purposes of this report the Thomas Bishop Barn will not be considered a resource due to the collapsed nature of the structure and the fact that there is no viewer group associated with this structure.

E. Selection of Key Views

Selection of Key Views, or those views which will show the greatest degree of change, both positive or negative, that a viewer group would likely experience, were based on the results of the field investigation and the preliminary viewshed map. Based on these previous work tasks, the following Key Views have been established and reflect the greatest degree of change to the identified viewer groups and will form the basis for further detailed evaluation:

Table 4- Key Views

Key View Location* Associated Viewer Group

1 Intersection of Warren Road & Cherry Road Traveler/ Bicyclist

2 Warren Road Between Cherry Road & Hillcrest Drive Traveler/ Bicyclist

3 Intersection of Warren Road & Warren Drive Traveler/ Bicyclist 4, 5, 6,7 16 Hillcrest Road Resident

8,9,10,11 8 Hillcrest Road Resident

Name of Resource Type of Resource Visiblity

1405 Hanshaw Rd Residential- NR Listed Not visible due to topography

1426 Hanshaw Rd Residential- NR Listed Not visible due to vegetation and built form/ structures

1201 Hanshaw Rd Residential- NR Listed Not visible due to topography

Eight Square Schoolhouse Cultural- NR Listed Not visible due to topography

Rogue’s Harbor Inn Cultural- NR Listed Not visible due to topography

Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway Cultural- Scenic Not visible due to topography


Visible


Visible



F. Creation of Final Viewshed Map

The Final Viewshed Map, Figure 5, represents the results of the field investigation superimposed on the preliminary viewshed map (Figure 4). The red lines on the map indicate areas where the project will likely not be visible due to vegetative and/or manmade obstructions. The green lines indicate where the project will potentially be visible from the surrounding public rights of way. The Key views have also been added to the map to provide their location relative to the visible areas on the map.

FINA

L VIE

WSH

ED M

APFI

GURE

5



IV. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND EVALUATION MATERIALS

A. Impact Assessment Definitions

The following paragraphs explain the criteria upon which the evaluation of potential impacts will be based. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA), Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects, January 2015, and The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Policy DEP-00-2, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts were referenced for the evaluation criteria.

a. Visibility and Exposure

Visibility is the first criteria of evaluating a project’s potential impact. How much, at what distances and for how long the project can be seen, generally have a large impact on the viewers perception of a projects impact.

The “How Much?” question can be evaluated as to what portion of project can be seen and is not screened by existing vegetation or built structures. This is generally noted as a percentage of the whole that is visible. An example would be if a 40 foot high structure was screened on the lower 15 feet, the visibility would be 63% (15/40 -1 = .625).

The second question with respect to “at what distances can the project be seen” correlate to not only a physical distance on a map but also the placement of the project within the image. Generally, locations within an image correlate to being in the foreground, midground or background of the image. The following provides some guidance on this sub criteria:

Foreground – “The area that can be designated with clarity and simplicity not possible in middle and background because the observer is a direct participant. Maximum detail and color intensity are characteristic of this zone.”

Midground – “The distance in the landscape where elements begin to join. Conflicts of form, color, shape or scale become evident. Although colors are unmistakable, they appear softer and bluer. Visual detail is also lessened.”

Background – “The distance in the landscape where elements lose detailed distinctions. Emphasis is on the outline, or edge, of one land mass or water resource against another with a strong skyline element.”

The “How Long” question can be evaluated by how fast a viewer can travel over the distance that the project can be seen. This was noted on the final viewshed maps as green lines. For the purpose of this evaluation, the exposure begins when the project can be seen and ends when the viewer passes the project site. This criterion is best expressed in minutes and/or seconds depending on the mode of travel.

In general, projects that have a higher percentage of visibility, are located in the midground and foreground, and can be viewed for a longer period of time, tend to have a higher potential for impact than those which are located in the midground to background of the view, have a lower



percentage of visibility, and have a shorter viewing period. This evaluation is best expressed in a tabular format.

b. Visual Character

Visual character can be defined as the visible attributes within a view that are generally defined in terms of line, form, color or texture. In general, views that have varied texture, strong lines, natural forms and earthtone colors tend to have a higher degree of visual character than ones that have weak lines, unnatural forms, smooth textures and monotone colors.

c. Visual Contrast This can be defined as the appearance between elements and their background. A basic example of visual contrast would be an orange against a blue background. This arrangement has a high degree of visual contrast because the orange is strikingly visible. An arrangement such as green apple against a stand of green grass has decidedly less contrast.

d. Visual Quality Visual quality can be defined as what viewers generally like and dislike about visual elements that compose the visual character of a particular scene. In general, these likes can be categorized into three sub-criteria; Natural Harmony, Cultural Order, and Project Coherence.

Natural Harmony: What viewer likes and dislikes about the natural environment. The viewer labels the visual resources of the natural environment as being either harmonious or inharmonious. Harmony is considered desirable; disharmony is undesirable.

Cultural Order: What a viewer likes and dislikes about the cultural environment. The viewer labels the visual resources of the cultural environment as being either orderly or disorderly. Orderly is considered desirable; disorderly is undesirable.

Project Coherence: What the viewer likes and dislikes about the project environment. The viewer labels the visual resources of the project environment as being either coherent or incoherent. Coherent is considered desirable; incoherent is undesirable.

B. Evaluation Materials

This section of report details the tools that have been produced to aid in the evaluation of potential visual impacts from each of the Key View Points. Photosimulations have been produced for all Key Views. Additionally, cross sections have also been developed for views from 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road

a. Photosimulation Process

A detailed explanation of facility modeling, photographic procedures, and photo merging can be found in Appendix D. In general, however, the photosimulation process has been broken down into the following basic steps:



Creation of the building models and the site layout, grading, landscape and lighting modelsand merging them to form a complete project model

Bringing the facility model into a rendering software and applying real world textures,colors, materials, season and time of day

Creating a camera in the rendering software and matching the elements within the imagesfrom the Key views to the same elements in the model

Exporting a raw post construction image and merging the information to remain in theexisting view with the raw image to produce a final post construction view in a photo editing software.

b. Cross Section Development

Cross sections were developed for specific views from 8 and 16 Hillcrest Road using the existingand proposed grading and layout plans. A specific digital cross section line was developed fromthe key view locations through the proposed building, in this case the Maintenance Building, theSalt Barn or the Cold Storage building. This generated a 2-dimensional section of the existingand proposed topography along the section line. This was exported and rendered with sightlines, and existing and proposed vegetation to represent the screening elements in the 2-dimensional cross section.



V. KEY VIEW IMPACT EVALUATION

The following represents the evaluation of potential visual impacts from each of the Key Views based on the criteria listed in Section IV of this report. As noted within Section IV, the evaluation will discuss the Visibility and Exposure in tabular form and then move on to the evaluation of individual key views based on the criteria of Visual Character, Visual Contrast and Visual Quality

A. VISIBILITY AND VIEWER EXPOSURE

The table below discusses the viewer groups which may be affected by the project, the length of visibility and the amount of time the viewer would be exposed to views of the proposed project. This table provides a quantitative analysis of the duration that each viewer group would be able to see the project from along nearby roads. The viewer locations are within the public right-of-way and places from which the project would be visible based on the field investigation.

Table 5- Viewer Group Exposure

Viewer Location Viewer Group Length of Visibility

Duration of Visibility* (min:sec)

Number of Viewers

Warren Road (Northbound)

Traveler 2,170 0:30 3742 Bicyclists 2:03 Warren Road (Southbound)

Traveler 620 0:09 3742 Bicyclists 0:35 Cherry Road (Eastbound)

Traveler 250

0:04 unknown

Bicyclists 0:14 Cherry Road

(Westbound) Traveler

1,470 0:22

unknown Bicyclists 1:24

Warren Drive/ Hillcrest Drive (Northbound)

Traveler 460

0:07 unknown

Bicyclists 0:26

Hillcrest Drive (Southbound)

Traveler 225

0:03 unknown

Bicyclists 0:13 Snyder Road

(Northbound) Traveler

720 0:09

Unknown Bicyclists 0:41

16 Hillcrest Road Residents N/A 24 hr Assumed 4 8 Hillcrest Road Residents N/A 24 hr Assumed 4

* Duration of Visibility was determined at the posted speed limit or by using generally accepted standards.

Duration of Visibility = Distance ÷ Speed, therefore: Motorists @ 45 mph = 0.0125 mi./sec. (66 ft/sec.) Motorists @ 55 mph = 0.01539 mi./sec. (80.7 ft/sec.) Bicyclists @ 12 mph = 0.003 mi./ sec (17.6 ft/sec.) Residents @ 365 days/year, 24 hours/day



The potential project visibility at each key view is discussed below to evaluate how much of the project would be visible and the location of the project in the view.

Table 6- Project Visibility

Key View Distance from

Proposed Project*

Amount of Project Visible*

Amount of Project

Silhouetted Against the Sky*

Location within the image

Key View 1 (Warren Rd.& Cherry

Rd.) ±1,430’ 0% 0%

Not Visible

Key View 2 (Warren Rd.) ±560’ upper

50%** 0% Mid Ground

Key View 3 (Warren Rd. & Warren

Dr.) ±600’ 0% 0%

Not Visible

16 Hillcrest Road ±420’ 100% 0% Midground 8 Hillcrest Road ±450’ 100% 0% Background

* Distances and percentages are in relation to the Maintenance Facility only.

**Key View 2 demonstrates the limited visibility of the upper portion of the proposed Sub-HQ Facility from Key View2 as well as the existing vegetation that screens the bottom portion of the facility.

B. ROADWAYS ADJACENT TO THE SITE

The following evaluation pertains to keys views that were available along Warren Road, from Cherry Road to Warren Drive. These locations represent the largest changed in the visual environment that would be available to the traveler and bicyclist viewer group.

Key View 1 – Intersection of Warren Road and Cherry Road Looking North

Key View 1 contains Warren Road as the primary linear element within the view receding into the background from left to right, with Cherry Road cutting horizontally within the view. The vegetation in this view is a mix of maturing evergreen and deciduous vegetation approximately 50’-60’ in height on both the left and right side of the view, reinforcing the linear nature of the corridor. The visual character of this view is decidedly linear and leads to a coherent visual quality. The vegetation in the midground of the view is to remain and as such, the project will not be visible from this key view, resulting in no loss in the visual character or quality of the view. Refer to Figure 6.

FIGUREEXISTING VIEW FROM INTERSECTION

OF WARREN ROAD & CHERRY ROAD (NOT VISIBLE)6KEY VIEW 1 (IMAGE E)



Key View 2-Warren Road adjacent to the site looking west

Key View 2 contains Warren Road as the primary linear element within the view cutting horizontally within the view, with the foreground of the view. The linear nature of the view is reinforced by the roadway striping. The vegetation in this view is a mix of maturing evergreen and deciduous vegetation approximately 50’-60’ in height in the midground and background of the view .. The visual character of this view is decidedly linear and leads to a coherent visual quality. Refer to Figure 7 to review the existing condition image.

The proposed view condition will remain the same within the foreground and the midground of image, with both the roadway and vegetation remaining intact. The proposed maintenance building front roof (blue roof) is partially visible in the background of the view, with a majority of the facility being screened by the foreground vegetation. As noted within the Table 5-Viewer Group Exposure, this view would be available for the traveler viewer group for approximately 9-30 seconds and the bicycle viewer group for approximately 35 second to 2 minutes. While the blue roof provides a bit more visual contrast, the limited nature of the visibility and the preservation of the screening vegetation within the foreground results in no loss of the visual character or quality of the view. Refer to Figures7 and Figure 8 for the existing and proposed condition images.

Key View 3-Intersection of Warren Road and Warren Drive Looking Southwest

Key View 3 contains the intersection of Warren Road and Warren Drive as the primary linear element within the view cutting horizontally within the view, with foreground vegetation softening the view. The midground vegetation in this view is a mix of maturing evergreen and deciduous vegetation approximately 50’-60’ in height which serves to screen the existing structure and self-storage facility at 8 Hillcrest Road from view. The visual character of this view is decidedly linear and leads to a coherent visual quality. The vegetation in the midground of the view is to remain and as such the project will not be visible from this key view, resulting in no loss in the visual character or quality of the view. Refer to Figure 9 to review this Key View.

C. HISTORIC RESOURCES

The following evaluation pertains to keys views that were available along from the historic resources located directly adjacent to the site. Key Views 4, 5, 6 and 7 represent the existing and proposed views from both the first and second floors from 16 Hillcrest Road. Key Views 8, 9, 10 and 11 represent the existing and proposed views from both the first and second floors of 8 Hillcrest Road. These locations represent the largest changes in the local visual environment that would be available to the resident viewer group.

FIGURE 7EXISTING VIEW FROM WARREN ROAD

ADJACENT TO THE SITEKEY VIEW 2 (IMAGE G)

FIGURE 8PROPOSED VIEW FROM WARREN ROAD

ADJACENT TO THE SITEKEY VIEW 2 (IMAGE G)

FIGURE 9EXISTING VIEW FROM INTERSECTION OF

WARREN DRIVE AND WARREN ROAD (NOT VISIBLE)KEY VIEW 3 (IMAGE S)



A. Key View 4 -16 Hillcrest Road- Front Door Looking toward the Sub-Residency Building

Key View 4 is the view from the former front door of 16 Hillcrest Road looking south toward the proposed project site. The foreground view contains a large maple tree centrally located in the image with a grassed area surrounded by a picket fence and deciduous trees. The midground is comprised of open field and apple trees. The background is comprised of hedgerow vegetation approximately 20-30’ high as well as maturing deciduous and evergreen vegetation in the 50-60’ height range, the distant horizon and sky. The fencing and foreground vegetation give a strong sense of linear enclosure which is reinforced by the open field and the strong line of hedgerow vegetation which recedes into the image from right to left. This landscape is typical of a former agrarian use and maintains much of the visual character and quality associated with this landscape type due to the coherent natural harmony and the orderly arrangement of the natural elements. This setting was noted within the architectural survey as being a contributing factor to the historic nature of the 16 Hillcrest Road Property. Refer to Figure 10 for the Photo Location and Figure 13 for the existing condition view

Within the proposed view the foreground elements, such as the large maple tree, grassed area within the picket fence and other vegetation will remain. The midground views substantially change from those of open field, apple trees and linear hedgerow vegetation to pavement, the sub-residency building and site lighting. With minimal exceptions the building and site elements are completely visible within the view. The background is also converted by a reduction in the vegetation height but will largely remain the same. This view in the unscreened condition, with the addition of the project site elements, substantially changes the visual character eliminating long linear view of views former fields and hedgerows with building forms and pavements that are horizontally located and foreshorten the view. Additionally, the building and base plane pavement elements provide visual contrast by replacing open field and hedgerows with angular built forms. The visual character is converted from one with a high visual character to one which will have an inharmonious and undesirable visual character and quality. Refer to Figure 14 to view the unscreened proposed condition simulation.

Given significant contrast within the view, a natural screening plan has been developed to minimize impacts from this view. The screening plan, as proposed, will consist of both berming and installation of evergreen and deciduous vegetation. The berm is proposed to be 5’ high and have a meandering natural form with both trees and shrubs being planted on and around it. The plantings will contain evergreen trees with an installed height of 12 feet; Overstory deciduous trees with an installed height of 12-14 feet; Understory trees with an installed height of 10 feet; and deciduous shrubs with an installed height of 4 feet. As can be noted within Figure 11 and Figure 15, there is a significant reduction in visibility of the lower portions of the building and pavement areas, with the upper portions of the sub-residency building still visible and the background reduction in vegetation still noticeable. The visual character of this view will still be diminished due to the inclusion of the linear building elements, the screening significantly reduces the visual contrast and while it begins to provide some level of natural harmony, it also significantly foreshortens the views, which not as desirable as the former longer views. Refer to Figure 11 and Figure 15 for cross sections and proposed simulations.

PHOT

O/SE

CTIO

N LO

CATI

ON M

AP -

16 H

ILLCR

EST

FIGU

RE 1

0

COLD STORAGE

PROPANE TANKS

FUEL ISLAND

GRADING LIMITS

16 HILLCREST ROAD

INSET A


PROPERTY LINE



8 HILLCREST ROAD

SALTBARN

134

2

INSET A: VIEWING LOCATION MAP

16 HILLCRESTROAD


SECTION 1B

SECTION 1C

SEC

TIO

N 1

A

SECT

IONS

TOW

ARDS

SUB

-RES

IDEN

CY B

UILD

ING/

SALT

BAR

N - 1

6 HI

LLCR

EST

FIGU

RE 1

1

SECTION 1A

SECTION 1B

FIGU

RE 1

2

SECTION 1C

SECT

IONS

TOW

ARDS

COL

D ST

ORAG

E BU

ILDIN

G - 1

6 HI

LLCR

EST

FIGURE KEY VIEW13 4EXISTING VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROAD

FRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARD SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

Image taken 12/4/1834 mm lens

FIGURE KEY VIEW 414

PROPOSED VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROADFRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARD SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

NO SCREENING

FIGURE KEY VIEW 415

PROPOSED VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROADFRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARD SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

SCREENING



B. Key View 5 -16 Hillcrest Road- Front Door Looking toward the Salt Barn

Key View 5 is the view from the former front door of 16 Hillcrest Road looking southwest toward the proposed Salt Barn. The foreground view contains a grassed area surrounded by a picket fence. The midground is comprised of trees and successional hedgerow vegetation and the remains of the former Thomas Bishop Barn. The background is comprised of hedgerow vegetation approximately 20-30’ high as well as maturing deciduous and evergreen vegetation in the 50-60’ height range, the distant horizon and sky. The fencing and foreground vegetation give a strong sense of enclosure which is reinforced by the open field and the strong line of hedgerow vegetation which recedes into the image from left to right. This landscape is typical of a former agrarian use and maintains much of the visual character and quality associated with this landscape type due to the coherent natural harmony and the orderly arrangement of the natural elements. This setting was noted within the architectural survey as being a contributing factor to the historic nature of the 16 Hillcrest Road Property. Refer to Figure 10 for the Photo Location and Figure 16 for the existing condition view

Within the proposed view, the foreground and midground elements, such as the large maple and other deciduous trees, grassed area within the picket fence, the former Thomas Bishop Barn, and hedgerow vegetation with the right portion of the view will remain. While the midground views on the right side of view will not change, the portion within the left side of the view will change substantially. The hedgerow and field areas will be converted to pavement, the sub-residency building, salt barn and site lighting. The sub-residency building is the most visible within the view with the salt barn being partially visible within the central portion of the view. The background is also modified by a reduction in the vegetation height but will largely remain the same. This view in the unscreened condition, with the addition of the project site elements, changes the visual character eliminating long linear view of views former fields and hedgerows with building forms and pavements that are horizontally located and foreshorten the view within half of the view. Additionally, the building and base plane pavement elements provide visual contrast by replacing open field and hedgerows with angular built forms. The visual character is converted from one with a high visual character to one which will have an inharmonious and undesirable visual character within half of the view. Refer to Figure 17 to view the unscreened proposed condition simulation.

Given significant contrast within the half of the view, a natural screening plan has been developed to minimize impacts from this view. The screening plan, as proposed, will consist of both berming and installation of evergreen and deciduous vegetation. The berm is proposed to be 5’ high and have a meandering natural form with both trees and shrubs being planted on and around it. The plantings will contain evergreen trees with an installed height of 12 feet; Overstory deciduous trees with an installed height of 12-14 feet; Understory trees with an installed height of 10 feet; and deciduous shrubs with an installed height of 4 feet. As can be noted within Figure 12 and Figure 18, there is a significant reduction in visibility of the lower portions of the sub-residency building and pavement areas, with only limited areas of the upper portions of the buildings still visible. The visual character and quality of this view is increased over the unscreened condition and has significantly reduced the visual contrast by the addition of the screening plan. In this view, the proposed screening plan minimizes the potential impacts, providing a greater level of

FIGURE KEY VIEW 516EXISTING VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROAD

FRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARD SALT BARN


FIGURE KEY VIEW 517

PROPOSED VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROADFRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARD SALT BARN

NO SCREENING

FIGURE KEY VIEW 518

PROPOSED VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROADFRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARD SALT BARN

SCREENING



C. Key View 6 -16 Hillcrest Road- 2nd Floor Looking toward the Sub-Residency Building

Key View 6 is the view from the second floor of 16 Hillcrest Road looking south toward the proposed project site. The foreground view contains a large maple tree located in the left of view with deciduous hedgerow trees in the central portion. The midground is composed of apple trees, open field and hedgerow. The background consists of deciduous and evergreen vegetation with a height of approximately 50-60’ tall, distant horizon and sky. This landscape is typical of a former agrarian use and maintains much of the visual character and quality associated with this landscape type due to the coherent natural harmony and the orderly arrangement of the natural elements and the strong linearity of the hedgerows. This setting was noted within the architectural survey as being a contributing factor to the historic nature of the 16 Hillcrest Road Property. Refer to Figure 10 for the Photo Location and Figure 19 for the existing condition view.

Within the proposed view the foreground elements, such as the large maple tree and hedgerow trees remain. The midground views substantially change from those of open field, apple trees and linear hedgerow vegetation to pavement, the sub-residency building and site lighting. The building and site elements are completely visible within the view. The background is also converted by a reduction in the vegetation height. This view in the unscreened condition, substantially degrades the visual character eliminating long linear view of views former fields and hedgerows with building forms and pavements that are horizontally located and foreshorten the view and are commercial in nature. Additionally, the building and base plane pavement elements provide visual contrast by replacing open field and hedgerows with angular built forms. The visual character and quality is converted from one with a high visual quality and character to one which will have an inharmonious and undesirable visual character and quality. Refer to Figure 20 to view the unscreened proposed condition simulation.

Given significant contrast within the view, a natural screening plan has been developed to minimize impacts from this view. The screening plan, as proposed, will consist of both berming and installation of evergreen and deciduous vegetation. The berm is proposed to be 5’ high and have a meandering natural form with both trees and shrubs being planted on and around it. The plantings will contain evergreen trees with an installed height of 12 feet; Overstory deciduous trees with an installed height of 12-14 feet; Understory trees with an installed height of 10 feet; and deciduous shrubs with an installed height of 4 feet. As can be noted within Figure 11 and Figure 21, there is a reduction in visibility of the lower portions of the building and pavement areas, but not significantly over the unscreened views. The visual character of this view will still be diminished due to the inclusion of the linear building elements and the visual contrast and quality will be minimally affected by the proposed screening plan

Nighttime views were also simulated for this specific view since it lies directly outside a bedroom window. The simulation was created based on a building and site lighting plan at maximum wattage, that would represent the site during periods of full nighttime operation. As noted in Figure 22, the sub- residency building and pavement areas are visible. It should be noted that based on the site lighting plan, located in Appendix C there is no light trespass beyond the site perimeter and this can be confirmed within the foreground of the simulations. This will represent a new light source where one currently does not exist. To determine if the proposed screening plan would minimize potential impacts from this view, simulations with the screening plan were created and can be viewed within Figure 23. As noted within the simulation, the screening plan



significantly reduces the reflected light off the pavement as well as the lower portion of the lighted building allowing for a reduction in nighttime visibility. While there is substantial reduction in visible light, it should be noted that there is still a visible light source where one currently did not historically exist.

FIGURE KEY VIEW 619


EXISTING VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROAD 2ND FLOOR LOOKING TOWARD SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

FIGURE 620 KEY VIEW

PROPOSED VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROAD 2ND FLOOR LOOKING TOWARD SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

NO-SCREENING

FIGURE 621 KEY VIEW


SCREENING

FIGURE 622 KEY VIEW


NIGHT - NO SCREENING

FIGURE 623 KEY VIEW


NIGHT - SCREENING



D. Key View 7 -16 Hillcrest Road- Front Door Looking toward the Cold Storage

Key View 7 is the view from the second floor of the west side of the house at 16 Hillcrest Road looking west toward the proposed Cold Storage Building. The foreground view contains a grassed areas with large deciduous trees. The former Thomas Bishop barn remnants and successional field growth anchor the midground. The background consists of overstory hedge row trees, approximately 50-60’ high and dense deciduous vegetation, approximately 20’-30’ high and sky. This landscape is typical of a former agrarian use and maintains much of the visual character and quality associated with this landscape type due to the coherent natural harmony and the orderly arrangement of the natural elements. This setting was noted within the architectural survey as being a contributing factor to the historic nature of the 16 Hillcrest Road Property. Refer to Figure 10 for the Photo Location and Figure 24 for the existing condition view

Within the proposed view, the foreground and midground elements, such as the large maple and other deciduous trees, grassed area, the former Thomas Bishop Barn, and hedgerow vegetation with the right portion of the view will remain. While the background views on the right side of view will not change, the portion within the left side of the view will change moderately with partial views of the Salt Barn being available. It should be noted that the Cold Storage Building and the Hopper Building will not be visible. The background is also modified by a reduction in the vegetation height but will largely remain the same. This view in the unscreened condition, with the addition of the project site elements, does not substantially change the visual character due to the preservation of a majority of the midground vegetation preserving the agrarian character and quality of the view. Based on the potential change in character a potential screening plan is not needed to reduce or minimize impacts. Refer to Figure 25 to view the unscreened proposed condition simulation.

FIGURE 724 KEY VIEWEXISTING - 16 HILLCREST ROAD

2ND FLOOR WEST LOOKING TOWARD COLD STORAGE


FIGURE 725 KEY VIEW

PROPOSED VIEW - 16 HILLCREST ROAD2ND FLOOR WEST LOOKING TOWARD COLD STORAGE

NO SCREENING



E. Key View 8 -8 Hillcrest Road- Front Door Looking toward the Sub-Residency

Key View 8 is the view from the front door of 8 Hillcrest Road looking west toward the proposed Sub-Residency Building. The foreground view contains gravel pavement and two small shrubs. The midground is composed of self-storage building, approximately 14’ tall and gravel pavement and large deciduous trees. The Background contains dense hedgerow vegetation. The visual character within this view is very linear and commercial in nature. Views to the project site are nearly obscured with exception of the open space between the two self-storage units. The visual quality is coherent within the view due to the amount of built structure but undesirable and inharmonious with the natural setting in general. Refer to Figure 26 for the Photo Location and Figure 28 for the existing condition view

Within the proposed view, all the foreground and midground elements remain and only the background is changed to allow views of the proposed Sub-Residency building and pavements. This view in the unscreened condition, with the addition of the project site elements, does not substantially change the visual character or quality due to the amount and type of built structure within the view however there is some visual contrast due to the color of the building in relation to the color of the self-storage facility. Refer to Figure 27 for the Cross sections and Figure 29 for the proposed simulated view.

To reduce the visual contrast a screening plan was developed and will consist of evergreen and deciduous vegetation. The plantings will contain evergreen trees with an installed height of 12 feet; Overstory deciduous trees with an installed height of 12-14 feet; Understory trees with an installed height of 10 feet; and deciduous shrubs with an installed height of 4 feet. As can be noted within Figure 27 and Figure 30, there is a significant reduction in visibility of the of the sub-residency building and a significant reduction in the visual contrast.

PHOT

O/SE

CTIO

N LO

CATI

ON M

AP -

8 HI

LLCR

EST

FIGU

RE 2

6

COLD STORAGE

PROPANE TANKS

FUEL ISLAND

GRADING LIMITS

16 HILLCREST ROAD

INSET A


PROPERTY LINE



8 HILLCREST ROAD


SALTBARN

INSET A: VIEWING LOCATION MAP

8 HILLCRESTROAD

56

7

SECTION 2B

SECTION 2A

FIGU

RE 2

7

SECTION 2A

SECTION 2B

SECT

IONS

TOW

ARDS

SUB

-RES

IDEN

CY B

UILD

ING/

SALT

BAR

N - 8

HILL

CRES

T

FIGURE A28 EXISTING VIEW8 HILLCREST ROAD

FRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING


FIGURE A29 PROPOSED VIEW

8 HILLCREST ROADFRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

NO SCREENING

FIGURE A30

8 HILLCREST ROADFRONT DOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

WITH SCREENINGPROPOSED VIEW



F. Key View 9 -8 Hillcrest Road- 1st Floor looking toward the Salt Barn

Key View 9 is the view from the 1st floor of 8 Hillcrest Road looking west toward the proposed Salt Barn. As can be noted within the view, the existing self-storage buildings completely obscure views to the proposed site and therefore there are no impacts to this viewing location. Refer to Figure 33 for this key view.

G. Key View 10 -8 Hillcrest Road- 2nd floor Looking toward the Salt Barn

Key View 10 is the view from the west side 2nd floor of 8 Hillcrest Road looking west toward the proposed Salt Barn. The foreground view contains gravel pavement, self-storage building and large deciduous tree. The mid ground consists of large deciduous trees and hedgerow vegetation. The background consists of maturing vegetation approximately 50-60’ tall and sky. The visual character within this view is very linear and commercial in nature. Limited views of the site exist in the background of the view and are mostly available to the left of the image. The visual quality is coherent within the view due to the amount of built structure but undesirable and inharmonious with the natural setting in general. Refer to Figure 26 for the Photo Location and Figure 34 for the existing condition view.

Within the proposed view, all the foreground and midground elements remain and only the background is changed to allow views of the proposed Sub-Residency building, salt barn and and pavements. This view in the unscreened condition, with the addition of the project site elements, does not substantially change the visual character or quality due to the amount and type of built structure within the view however there is some visual contrast due to the color of the building in relation to the color of the self-storage facility. Refer to Figure 27 for the Cross sections and Figure 35 for the proposed simulated view.

To reduce the visual contrast a screening plan was developed and will consist of evergreen and deciduous vegetation. The plantings will contain evergreen trees with an installed height of 12 feet; Overstory deciduous trees with an installed height of 12-14 feet; Understory trees with an installed height of 10 feet; and deciduous shrubs with an installed height of 4 feet. As can be noted within Figure 27 and Figure 36, there is a significant reduction in visibility of the of the sub-residency building and a significant reduction in the visual contrast.

Nighttime views were also simulated for this specific view since it lies directly outside a bedroom window. The simulation was created based on a building and site lighting plan at maximum wattage, that would represent the site during periods of full nighttime operation. As noted in Figure 37, the sub- residency building, salt barn and pavement areas are visible. It should be noted that based on the site lighting plan, located in Appendix C there is no light trespass beyond the site perimeter and this can be confirmed within the foreground of the simulations. This will represent a new light source where one currently does not exist. However, the existing lighting on the self-storage site in the foreground of the image minimizes the impacts due to the existing ambient light levels. To determine if the proposed screening plan would minimize potential impacts from this view, simulations with the screening plan were created and can be viewed within Figure 38. As noted within the simulation, the screening plan significantly reduces the reflected light off the pavement as well as the lower portion of the lighted building allowing for a reduction in nighttime visibility.


2ND FLOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING



8 HILLCREST ROAD2ND FLOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING

WITH AND WITHOUT SCREENING

FIGURE A33 EXISTING VIEW

8 HILLCREST ROAD1ST FLOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SALT BARN

(NOT VISIBLE)



2ND FLOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SALT BARN



8 HILLCREST ROAD2ND FLOOR LOOKING TOWARDS SALT BARN

NO SCREENING



NIGHT - NO SCREENING



NIGHT WITH SCREENING



VI. MITIGATION MEASURES

To reduce potential visual impacts the project is proposing the following mitigation measures for inclusion in the final project to minimize impacts to the affected user groups

1. Screening:

Retention of as much on-site vegetation as possible between the site and Warren Road as well as 8 and 16 Hillcrest Road. As noted within the key view evaluation the proposed screening plan mimimizes views of the project site from the first floor views of the both 8 and 16 Hillcrest and over time will assist in reducing views from the second floors. The screening plan proposes to include native species that reside on the existing landscape to create better harmony with the natural environment. The installed size of the plant material has a large effect on immediate screening of facility and the following should be considered the minimum sizes installed:

Overstory Deciduous Trees- 4” caliper- 12’-14’ tall

Evergreen Trees- 12’ tall

Understory Deciduous Trees- 10’ tall

Deciduous Shrubs – 4’ tallAdditionally a 5 foot meandering berm should be provided and the plant material should be planted on the berm to maximize the effectiveness of the screening plan.

2. Low profile:

The proposed buildings have been designed to be as low profile as possible so to provide not to interfere with the nearby airport and to limit their impact on the surrounding environment while still providing the necessary room for NYSDOT activities.

3. Non-Specular Materials:

The proposed buildings have been designed with non-specular materials so to limit the amount of light that is reflected at night and reduce sun glare during the day.

4. Lighting:

The proposed lighting plan proposed to use all downlight style fixutres for all building mounted and pole mounted lighting. Additionally the project is proposing to use motion sensors and dimmers on all exterior lights which went not in full use will reduce the light cast by 63% further reducing potential nighttime impacts. It should be noted that there is no light trespass beyond the property lines



VI. CONCLUSION

As evidenced by the evaluation of key views, there will be minimal impacts to the traveler andbicycle viewer groups along Warren Road in the vicinity of the project site and do not represent asignificant visual impact.

The residential viewer group as represented by the National Register Eligible historic homeslocated at 16 Hillcrest Road and 8 Hillcrest Road will be impacted detailed discussions areincluded below.

16 Hillcrest Road

The existing views from 16 Hillcrest Road depict views of successional agricultural fields andhedgerows having a high visual quality and character within the midground and background.These views also include the partially collapsed remains of the Thomas Bishop Barn which hasbeen noted as a contributing factor to the overall historic setting of property. A heavy December2018 snowfall and subsequent rain caused the roof collapse of the barn and portions of theinterior wall sections.

The proposed project proposes to build a NYSDOT sub-residency and associated supportbuildings. Based on the site plan, the sub-residency building, the salt barn and associatedmaneuvering pavement and site lighting will be visible. It should be noted that, based on theretention of existing vegetation along the western side of the adjacent property line, the coldstorage building, hopper building as well as outside storage areas, will be screened from 16Hillcrest.

The views of the visible portion of the project will be of pavement, site lighting and a metal panelbuilding, with overhead doors within the midground of the views. As can be noted the buildingand associated improvements will be visible without screening and will be partially visible withthe proposed screening plan will be fully visible. Based on the photosimulations views from thefirst floor, only the roof would be visible with the proposed screening plan installed. Views fromthe second floor would allow full views of the facility, while the screening plan would buffer thepavement areas and the lower two thirds of the building, allowing views of the upper portion ofthe overhead doors and the roof.

Nighttime views from the second floor depict a fully operational facility with the lights at fullwattage. The project is clearly visible and while the proposed screening plan only minimallyscreens the lights on the building, it substantially minimizes the reflected light off the pavements.It should be noted that while the project is clearly visible, the downlight style fixtures, bothbuilding mounted and site lighting, produce no offsite glare (visible lamp bulbs) visible to 16Hillcrest. Additionally, the proposed lighting plan shows a fully operational facility at night whichis anticipated for approximately 35 days of the year. For the remainder of the nighttimeconditions the lighting will be reduced to 33% of the light cast visible within the simulations toreduce visual impacts and assist in attainment of the NYS energy code requirements.

Construction of the project will result in the conversion of the midground and background viewsfrom 16 Hillcrest Road from successional agricultural fields and hedgerows to pavement, sitelighting and metal panel building with overhead doors and a salt barn. The proposed screeningplan effectively minimizes views to the lower portion of the project from the first-floor views and



overtime will assist in screening the upper portions facility from the second floor views. While the screening plan effectively minimizes views to the facility, it does substantially foreshorten views currently available and changes the visual character and quality within the views to one of a more commercial nature. It should be noted that important historic contextual elements such as the Thomas Bishop Barn remnants and the former Hillcrest Road roadbed will remain intact and undisturbed in the foreground of the views. While the project effectively minimizes and reduces views of the project to the 16 Hillcrest Road the setting context will be changed, and the site will have nighttime lighting element that currently does not exist and will only be minimally mitigated by the installation of screening and light output minimization mitigation.

8 Hillcrest Road

The existing views from 8 Hillcrest Road depict views of an active self-storage facility in the foreground and midground of the views with fencing and hedgerow type vegetation within the midground and background.

The project proposes to build a NYSDOT sub-residency and associated support buildings. Based on the site plan, the sub-residency building, the salt barn and associated maneuvering pavement and site lighting will be visible. It should be noted that, based on the existing self-storage buildings, a majority of the project will be screened from view from 8 Hillcrest Road, with only the second floor view having more than partial views of the facility

The views of the visible portion of the project will be of pavement, site lighting and a metal panel building, with overhead doors and salt barn within the background of the views. As can be noted the building and associated improvements will be only be partially visible without screening and will be screened with the proposed screening plan. Based on the photosimulations views from the first floor, only the roof would be visible with the proposed screening plan installed. Views from the second floor would allow partial views of the facility, while the screening plan would buffer the pavement areas and the lower two thirds of the building, allowing views of the upper portion of the overhead doors and the roof.

Nighttime views from the second floor depict an operational facility with the lights at full wattage. The project is visible, but the foreground lighting available at the self-storage facility reduces potential contrast within the nighttime environment. noted that while the project is visible, the downlight style fixtures, both building mounted and site lighting, produce no offsite glare (visible lamp bulbs) visible to 8 Hillcrest Road. Additionally, the proposed lighting plan shown anticipates this condition for approximately 35 days of the year. For the remainder of the nighttime conditions, the lighting will be reduced to 33% of the light cast visible within the simulations to reduce visual impacts and assist in attainment of the NYS energy code requirements.

Construction of the project will result in the conversion of the midground and background views from 8 Hillcrest Road from hedgerow type vegetation to buildings and pavement and lighting of similar style and shape as those available in the foreground of the views. The change in context, visual quality or character is not significant and the nighttime views only minimally change the cast and distance of available light within the view. Based on the existing context and proposed screening plan the project has minimized the visual impacts to 8 Hillcrest Road to the greatest extent practicable and while the project is visible it is not in contrast to the existing quality or character.



Appendix A- August 27 Field

Investigation Photos

FINA

L VIE

WSH

ED M

APFI

GURE

5

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY A FROM 1426 HANSHAW ROAD

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY B

FROM WARREN ROAD NORTH OF DART DRIVE INTERSECTION

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY C

FROM WARREN ROAD BETWEEN BROWN ROAD & BOWMAX DRIVE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY D FROM WARREN ROAD SOUTH OF BORG WARNER

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY E FROM INTERSECTION OF WARREN ROAD & CHERRY ROAD

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY F FROM WARREN ROAD ADJACENT TO THE SITE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY G FROM WARREN ROAD ADJACENT TO THE SITE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY H FROM HILLCREST ROAD NEAR SELF STORAGE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY I FROM 51 HILLCREST ROAD

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY J FROM 80 HILLCREST ROAD

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY K FROM OAKWOOD DRIVE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY L

FROM INTERSECTION OF WHISPERING PINES DRIVE & ARROWOOD LANE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY M

FROM INTERSECTION OF WHISPERING PINES DRIVE & TIGERLILY LANE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY N FROM CREST OF HILL ON PHEASANT WAY

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY O FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOREST ACRES DRIVE

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY P FROM WARREN ROAD NEAR VILLAGE APARTMENTS

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY Q

FROM CHERRY ROAD BETWEEN WARREN ROAD & SNYDER ROAD

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY R FROM SNYDER ROAD

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY S

FROM INTERSECTION OF WARREN DRIVE AND WARREN ROAD

IMAGENYSDOT ITHACA MAINTENANCE FACILITY T

FROM INTERSECTION OF BUSH LANE AND CHERRY ROAD



Appendix B- Views from Project Site to

Historic Properties

VIEW FROM PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT LOOKING TOWARDS 16 HILLCREST ROADFIGURE B1

FROM PROPOSED SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING LOOKING TOWARDS 16 HILLCREST ROADFIGURE B2

FROM PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT LOOKING TOWARDS 8 HILLCREST ROADFIGURE B3

FROM PROPOSED SUB-RESIDENCY BUILDING LOOKING TOWARDS 8 HILLCREST ROADFIGURE B4



Appendix C- Proposed Lighting Plan

PROP

OSED

LIGH

ITNG

PLA

NFI

GURE

C-1

COLD STORAGE

PROPANE TANKS

FUEL ISLAND

PROPOSED LIMIT OF LIGHTING

GRADING LIMITS

16 HILLCREST ROAD

PROPERTY LINE



8 HILLCREST ROAD


SALTBARN



Appendix D- Detailed Photosimulation

Creation Memo

December 19, 2018

Ms. Stephanie L. Delano Environmental Specialist 3 New York State Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road POD 4-1 Albany NY 12232 RE: NYSDOT Tompkins Residency (Ithaca-Tompkins County Regional Airport) -

Photosimulation Process PIN: 3M00.18 Dear Ms. Delano: As requested, a description of the process was used to create the attached photosimulations for 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road adjacent to the project site is being provided. The process generally consists of developing a site specific 3 dimensional model for the facility and then digitally merging the proposed modeling into the existing imagery. The following is the detailed description of the process used. Creation of the proposed Sub Headquarters Facility model: The creation of the proposed Sub Headquarters Maintenance Facility model combined building models supplied by the architect of record and the civil/landscape modeling was supplied by the civil engineer/landscape architect of record. Building models were supplied for all the built structures in a SketchUp format and included the Sub-HQ facility, the salt barn, and the cold storage building. The models provided by the architect had been progressed to the 100% design stage and included all proposed materials. The covered storage (hopper) was modeled in SketchUp by the landscape architect based on design plans. The civil engineer/landscape architect provided plans and modeling in an Autodesk Civil 3d and SketchUp format for proposed topography, pavement limits, building locations, fencing, landscape and surface treatments, and site lighting locations. This information was provided at the 95-100% design stage. Both the building and site models were initially combined in SketchUp and then brought into Lumion 8.5 modeling and rendering software. Within this software, civil based materials such as pavements and grass were added. The proposed light poles at 30’ above grade and proposed landscape screening were modeled and added in Lumion as well. The landscape screening plan was modeled to represent the installed height of the proposed plant materials. For the purposes of the planting plan the large deciduous trees (Maple and Shagbark Hickory) were modeled at 14 feet high; the White Pines were modeled at 12 feet high; the serviceberry was modeled at 10 feet high and the deciduous shrubs were modeled at four feet high.

Ms. Stephanie L. Delano, NYS DOT Page 2

The proposed lamps were added to the model for both the site lighting and the building mounted lighting. The cast and illumination level for the lamps was modeled based on the photometric lighting plan and the color of the light was developed using the manufacturer’s lighting data. The interior building lighting was added based on the photometric plan and as a uniform cast of light based on the manufacturers data. This would allow the software to portray a nighttime condition of the proposed facility with all the lighting on as it would be in full operation. Lastly the time of day, sun angle, cloud cover and season were modified to reflect the actual conditions during the proposed site that were anticipated during the site visit. Site Investigation to obtain Photographs from Critical Views On December 4, 2018 CHA team performed a site visit to 16 Hillcrest Road and 8 Hillcrest Road for the purposes of obtaining photographs that would be used for the backgrounds and camera matching that had been identified by the NYS State Office of Historic Preservation as being critical to their review. When arriving at the site, the team established horizontal control for the photographs by installing stakes that would be visible within photographs when taken. These stakes allowed the photographs and the proposed building and site models to be correlated in the modeling software. The height of the stakes was then recorded, and their location plotted using a GPS Backpack unit which would place them accurately within 1.5’ of their physical location in the field. A total of three stakes were placed in each view to allow for accuracy within the correlation. The photograph locations were also geolocated to provide an accurate physical location for each viewing location. For photos at ground level, the height of the center of the camera lens above the grade was recorded. For photos at taken at the second-floor elevation, the height of the camera on top of the rod was also recorded. These measurements would be used to construct a camera location within the modeling software at the correct height above grade. Lens setting for the images was obtained in the field as well as digitally. Updating the Site Model and Creation of the Photosimulations: The data for the camera and stake locations were imported into the site model and 3 dimensional objects were created representing the stakes and camera locations using the GPS location and height data obtained within the field. In Lumion, a camera was created and placed at the appropriate location, height and lens setting within the model for each view. A digital overlay of the existing photograph was imported into the camera and the stakes were matched within the model and photograph. Once aligned properly, the existing image was turned off, and the proposed view was saved as separate digital image. The existing image was imported into Adobe Photoshop as the background image and as a foreground overlay. Within the foreground overlay, existing information (buildings, vegetation, pavement, etc) to remain was kept and the information to be removed was eliminated from the image. The proposed facility image (produced in Lumion) was then added underneath the foreground overlay. Using the photoshop blending tools, the intersection of the images was softened to represent a seamless transition between the existing and proposed images. Imagery was created for the both the unscreened and screened conditions.

Ms. Stephanie L. Delano, NYS DOT Page 3

Night time simulations were created using the same process but creating a nighttime time of 11 pm within the Lumion software and the addition of a dark blue overlay mask and photoshop lighting tools to add ambient light witin the final merged images. Please contact me if there is any additional information that is required at [email protected], or (518) 453-2868.

Sincerely,

Nicholas J. Schwartz, RLA, LEED AP Senior Landscape Architect

Attachment (via email)

cc: Peter Dunleavy - NYSDOT (Via Email) Phil Bell- NYSDOT (Via Email) Tony Stellato- CHA (Via Email)

https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region3/projects/Tab

Documents

Appendix L Visual Impact Analysis...areas. A visual impact is caused when a project results in a significant change from the landscape setting and is not consistent with viewer expectations