TECHNCIAL APPENDIX TA-4.6 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT · 2012. 7. 11. · DRAFT DESIGN REPORT August 2010 TECHNCIAL APPENDIX TA-4.6 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Access 390

DRAFT DESIGN REPORTAugust 2010

TECHNCIAL APPENDIXTA-4.6

VISUAL IMPACTASSESSMENT REPORT

Access 390I-390 Exit 16

Interchange Reconstruction Project

P.I.N. 4390.17Monroe County

Town of BrightonCity of Rochester

28 East Main Street // 200 First Federal Plaza // Rochester, NY 14614-1909 // tel: 585.232.5135

our people and our passion i n ev ery p ro ject

New York State Department of Transportation

I-390 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTSAT ROUTE 15A AND ROUTE 15 (EXIT 16)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

TOWN OF BRIGHTON, MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORKP.I.N. 4390.17.111 / August 2010

Table of Contents

Page i

Page Number

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 1

3. Project Description ....................................................................................................... 3

4. Regional Landscape and Land Use.............................................................................. 4

5. Landscape Districts ...................................................................................................... 5

6. Viewshed and Key Viewpoints ..................................................................................... 9

7. Viewer Groups ............................................................................................................... 9

8. Assessment of Impacts............................................................................................... 10

9. Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 24

10. Summary ...................................................................................................................... 24

11. References ................................................................................................................... 25

Table of Contents

Page i

Page Number

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 1

3. Project Description ....................................................................................................... 3

4. Regional Landscape and Land Use.............................................................................. 4

5. Landscape Districts ...................................................................................................... 5

6. Viewshed and Key Viewpoints ..................................................................................... 9

7. Viewer Groups ............................................................................................................... 9

8. Assessment of Impacts............................................................................................... 10

9. Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 24

10. Summary ...................................................................................................................... 24

11. References ................................................................................................................... 25

Table of Contents

Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Location .................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2 Proposed Alternative 2 & Viewpoint Location Map ........................................... 2

Figure 2A Viewshed Map...................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3 Landscape Districts .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 4 Viewpoint 7 – Existing ...................................................................................... 13

Figure 5 Viewpoint 7 – Proposed Alternative ................................................................ 14

Figure 6 Viewpoint 19 – Existing .................................................................................... 15

Figure 7 Viewpoint 19 – Proposed Alternative .............................................................. 16







Figure 14 Viewpoint 2 – Existing ...................................................................................... 23

Figure 15 Viewpoint 2 – Proposed Alternative ................................................................ 24

Visual Impact Assessment

Page 1

1. Introduction

The proposed project is located in the Town of Brighton, Monroe County, New York as shown inFigure 1, and addresses the corridor needs along I-390 at Kendrick Road, Route 15 (West HenriettaRoad) and Route 15A (East Henrietta Road) at Interchange 16A and 16B. This report presents thefindings of a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for the proposed alternative as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1 – Project Location

2. Methodology

The purpose of this Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is to evaluate the proposed project and to assessits impacts, both positive and negative, on the visual resources of the project area. The process ofthis visual assessment consists of the following:

Perform a preliminary investigation of the project site to determine the physical/visual limitsof the affected environment. Within the context of the project area’s regional landscape,identify and document landscape units representing distinct visual experiences. Determinethe existing composite viewshed of the project area in the field and map its limits.

Identify the visually sensitive resources within the project area.

ProjectLimits

KendrickRoad

I-390

Inte

rcha

nge

Impr

ovem

ents

at

Rou

te 1

5A a

nd R

oute

15

Visu

al Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent

Source: Google Maps

FIGURE 2

Pro

pose

d A

ltern

ativ

e 3

& V

iew

poin

t Lo

catio

n M

ap

MONROE COUNTY HOSPITAL

MONROE COUNTY HEALTHDEPT.

BRIGHTON TOWN PARK

ERIE CANAL

VP-19VP-20

VP-21

VP-22

VP-2

VP-7



BRIGHTON TOWN PARK

ERIE CANAL

ERIE CANAL


Page 3

Identify the major viewer groups associated with the project area to determine potential viewexposure and general viewer sensitivity within the limits of the existing composite viewshed.

Identify and photograph key viewpoints which best represent critical views of the visualenvironment, in conjunction with the project sponsor

Analyze the existing visual resources and their qualities within the project area. Define thevisual character of each landscape unit and document pattern elements and patterncharacter. Document findings and assumptions of view exposure and view sensitivity todetermine viewer response.

Assess the visual impacts of the proposed project. Identify and discuss positive andnegative impacts. Prepare photo-simulations of the proposed project from the keyviewpoints to illustrate changes to the visual resources of the project area. Determine andsummarize probable viewer response to those changes.

Determine and define what mitigation measures, if any, can be employed to eliminate orlessen adverse impacts and enhance or create positive impacts to the visual resources ofthe project area.

3. Project Description

I-390 traverses north-south on the west of the City of Rochester, and serves as a major north-southhighway corridor through the Rochester region. The project area covered in the VIA includes the I-390 interchanges at Kendrick Road, Route 15 (West Henrietta Road) and Route 15A (East HenriettaRoad) (Interchange 16A and 16B)

The Null and one Build Alternative (Alternative 3) were developed for this project. The Null and BuildAlternatives are described below:

Null AlternativeThe Null Alternative provides only for the continued maintenance of the project corridor. Nooperational or capacity improvements are proposed under this alternative.

Alternative 3Alternative 3 will include improvements to reduce congestion and reduce the potential forcongestion related and other accidents. A detailed description of the features of this alternativefollows.

Improvements at Kendrick Road/East River Road: the existing I-390 southbound ramp to EastRiver Road will be reconstructed and realigned. A deceleration lane will be added to I-390. Thiswill provide room for a new on-ramp at this location.

The new on-ramp will accommodate southbound Rte. 15 traffic destined for I-390 southbound andwill eliminate the need for some traffic to traverse over Rte. 15A on the south frontage road toreach I-390 southbound. The ramp will also serve traffic from the University of Rochester area viaKendrick Road. To accommodate the additional traffic and improve access to the University ofRochester campus, a new roundabout will be constructed at Kendrick Road and East River Road.


Page 4

A new ramp will be constructed from Kendrick Road to I-390 northbound. This will serve trafficfrom the University of Rochester area.

The addition of the Kendrick Road on-ramp was considered at the request of the UofR. Thedesire to provide a full interchange at Kendrick Road was identified early in studies compiled forthe UofR and their long-range expansion plan. New access from East River Road (near KendrickRoad) to I-390 southbound was already proposed as part of the Southern Corridor study.Geometrics and the proximity of the Erie Canal preclude an off-ramp from I-390 northbound toKendrick Road. A new on-ramp from Kendrick Road to I-390 northbound was found to be feasibleand constructible.

Improvements at Rte. 15: A new loop ramp will be constructed from Rte. 15 northbound to I-390northbound. Rte. 15 southbound traffic to I-390 northbound will continue to use the existing ramp.Rte. 15 will be restriped to accommodate the new lane configuration. A right turn lane will bestriped for Rte. 15 southbound at the I-390 ramp and a right turn lane will be added on Rte. 15northbound at the north frontage road across from E. River Road. The left turn move from Rte. 15southbound to the service road will be eliminated.

Improvements at Rte. 15A: On I-390 the existing northbound mainline outside lane, which nowexits to Rte. 15A and provides access to Rte. 15 will be extended under the Rte. 15A bridge. Thisramp will split to provide a new loop ramp to Rte. 15A southbound and to provide a new accessdirectly to Rte. 15 at East River Road. A new ramp will be constructed from I-390 to Rte. 15Anorthbound. The existing ramp from Rte. 15A southbound to I-390 northbound will be relocated.This ramp includes a grade-separated crossing over the new ramp to Rte. 15A. The bridgecarrying Rte. 15A over the Erie Canal will be replaced and widened to provide 4 through travellanes with two auxiliary lanes (one in each direction). Rte. 15A will be restriped to provide a dualleft turn lane at the I-390 southbound and I-390 northbound ramps. The I-390 northbound rampwill be widened to accept the dual left and improve merge distances.

A new auxiliary lane will be added to the I-390 northbound to I-590 northbound connector. Thiswill allow a vehicle entering I-390 to weave across one lane and then use the new auxiliary lane tomerge onto I-590. The project will also include pavement and bridge rehabilitations whereappropriate, new signs, signals and pavement markings and improvements to bicycle andpedestrian facilities on affected highways.

4. Regional Landscape and Land Use

The project area lies within the Erie – Ontario Lowland Plains region of New York State, south of LakeOntario. The topography of the region can be characterized by its flat lands and rolling hills. Theproject corridor lies within the Erie Canal corridor in the Town of Brighton, southwest of the City ofRochester.

Land uses along this corridor consist primarily of commercial, office, and institutional, with smalleramounts of residential, and recreational uses provided by the Erie Canal. I-390 runs alongside theErie Canal and crosses over it between NYS Route 15A and Clinton Avenue South. The corridor isthe result of a highly manipulated landscape over time, from the construction of the Erie Canal to thelater construction of I-390, and the adjacent commercial development. The rolling topography andslopes are engineered and vegetation is planted or successional on steeper slopes bordering the ErieCanal. Roads surrounding the I-390 corridor generally consist of two-lanes and four-lanes withoccasional turn lanes and varying degrees of development.


Page 5

Topography within the area is moderately varied consisting primarily of rolling and nearly level areasto the north and south of the Erie Canal corridor. The slopes along the north side of the Erie Canalare steep in the project area. Most of the I-390 corridor is depressed within the project area and itsvisibility to and from the surrounding land uses is limited. Where it borders residential neighborhoods,it is buffered by the canal and screened by vegetated slopes.

The project parallels and reinforces a natural border (the Erie Canal) between the City of Rochester tothe north and the Town of Brighton to the south.

Figure 2A, Viewshed Map, illustrates the visibility of the project area. This map depicts the areapotentially visible from the viewpoint of travelers at a number of points simultaneously along theroadway and the viewpoint of residential/employees adjacent to the project.

The project viewshed for the proposed improvements are generally limited to the actual travel route ofI-390 and its access roads, as well as the perpendicular overhead cross streets adjacent to thecorridor. Due to the depressed nature of the corridor, there are no significant views or vistas affordedfrom the corridor. The depressed nature of the canal together with its predominately heavilyvegetated edges also prohibits any significant views of the Erie Canal from the I-390 corridor. Themost notable view is of the ornately detailed Monroe County Hospital building extending above thetreetops perched at the top of the north edge of the I-390 corridor.

5. Landscape Districts

Landscape districts represent distinct visual experiences within a project area. Identification of thesedistricts provides a framework for visual assessment that allows an assessment of the proposedalternative and its effects to the existing environment. Within the I-390 project corridor, threelandscape districts can be identified (Figure 3).

Landscape District I – I-390 & Erie Canal:Landscape District I includes the I-390 / Erie Canal corridor from west of the Kendrick Roadoverpass to where I-390 crosses over the Erie Canal east of East Henrietta Road. I-390 and thecanal are depressed into the landscape in this area and are surrounded by commercial, office,institutional, and residential land uses. I-390 runs relatively straight through this district with an upramp road connection to East River Road just east of Kendrick Road, and on and off ramps to I-390 at Route 15 (West Henrietta Road) and Route 15A (East Henrietta Road). The landscapeimmediately south along I-390 consists of fields gently sloping down towards I-390 and lightvegetation. I-390 and the land uses to the south of the corridor are in clear view of each other. Tothe north, I-390 and the Erie Canal are shielded from view by their depressed location, vegetation,and the surrounding land uses. The canal is at a lower elevation than the I-390 corridor and isedged by a steep heavily vegetated slope. This vegetated slope acts as a buffer between the I-390/Erie Canal corridor and land uses to the north between Kendrick Road and the project end

I-390

Inte

rcha

nge

Impr

ovem

ents

at

Rou

te 1

5A a

nd R

oute

15

Visu

al Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent

Source: Google Maps

FIGURE 2A

View

shed

Map



BRIGHTON TOWN PARK

ERIE CANAL


BRIGHTON TOWN PARK

ERIE CANAL

ERIE CANAL

Legend

Viewshed Area

I-390

Inte

rcha

nge

Impr

ovem

ents

at

Rou

te 1

5A a

nd R

oute

15

Visu

al Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent

Source: Google Maps

FIGURE 3

Land

scap

e D

istri

ctsMONROE

COUNTY HOSPITAL


BRIGHTON TOWN PARK

ERIE CANAL

ERIE CANAL

Landscape Districts

Landscape District I - I-390 & Erie Canal

Landscape District II - Residential

Landscape District III - Commercial & Institutional


Page 8

east of East Henrietta Road. The I-390 / Erie Canal corridor is crossed by three overpassesoccurring at Kendrick Road, Route 15 (West Henrietta Road) and Route 15A (East HenriettaRoad). At the overpasses, the canal has limited visibility from vehicular and pedestrian traffic.Currently along the length of the canal within the project limits, there are multiple bridge crossings(vehicular and utility) and highway exits and entrances. The bridge crossings are all similar, flatsteel beam structures with concrete decks and steel railing, characteristic of typical DOT-styleinfrastructure. They do not contribute to the historic setting of the canal. Within the eastern part ofthe project corridor (east of West Henrietta Road) the canal widens and is heavily vegetated alongthe banks, giving it a more naturalistic look and feel (less historic). West of West Henrietta Road,the canal is narrower and defined by metal sheet-pile and concrete walls. West of Kendrick Road,the canal retains its historic character beginning with the canal guard gate and extending to itsjunction with the Genesee River where there are railroad bridges and two historic footbridgescrossing the canal in Genesee Valley Park. The visual environment therefore already containsdominant vehicular /transportation corridor elements ranging from historic to modern within thislandscape district.

Landscape District II - Residential:Landscape District II consists of single-family residential properties (0.2± AC lots) of one to two-story houses with attached or detached garages, to the north of the I-390 / Erie Canal corridorbetween Kendrick Road and Route 15 (West Henrietta Road). The rear property lines of theseproperties are the northern boundary of the Erie Canal corridor. These properties sit higher thanthe canal on top of a steep heavily vegetated slope, shielding the view of the I-390 / Erie Canalcorridor in the summer months and creating a filtered view of the corridor in the winter months.

Landscape District III – Commercial & Institutional:Landscape District III consists of commercial, office and institutional land uses. The commercialareas consist of 1 to 5 story buildings located to the north and south of the I-390 corridor onRoute15 (West Henrietta Road) and Route 15A (East Henrietta Road). To the south of thecorridor, the office and institutional land uses consist of modern one to four-story buildings withminimal landscaping for buffering vegetation surrounding them. To the north, a majority of thecommercial, office, institutional and residential land uses are shielded by heavy vegetation alongthe embankments of the Erie Canal. The ornate architecture of the upper portion of the historicMonroe County Hospital building is visible above the treetops on the north side of the I-390corridor, along with the smokestack from the former county Iola complex to its east. Thesestructures are historic and serve as landmarks within the corridor. The Erie Canal runs parallel toI-390 through this corridor and remains mostly un-viewable from I-390 except for the portion that isvisible to westbound motorists only, between Kendrick Road and Route 15 (West Henrietta Road).


Page 9

6. Viewshed and Key Viewpoints

In conjunction with the NYSDOT, six (6) key viewpoints were selected that represent the views whichare most likely to be affected by the project and which would have the most significant impact uponthe viewer groups and the visual environment. These locations were photographed and post-construction photo simulations were developed to illustrate the potential changes to area visualresources that would result from the constructed project. The locations and directions of thesephotographs are shown on the Viewpoint Location Map (Figure 2). The existing photographs andproposed photo simulations are shown in Figures 4 through 15. The photo simulations were used toaid in the analysis of the project alternative.

7. Viewer Groups

To predict viewer responses to changes in the visual environment, it is important to identify the viewergroups who will be seeing the project. When assessing the viewer groups, four (4) factors becomeimportant: viewer exposure; viewer sensitivity; viewer activity; and viewer awareness. Each one ofthese factors influences how a viewer group will respond to changes. Within the I-390 projectcorridor, viewers can be categorized into three groups: commuters/shoppers, Erie Canal / CanalwayTrail users (boaters, pedestrians and bicyclists) and residents.

MotoristsMotorists comprise the largest viewer group within the project area. Motorists view the projectfrom the road, and typically in a more dynamic mode (i.e., continual movement, higher travelingspeeds, and short duration). This motorist viewer group consists of repeat motorists; newmotorists; and traversing motorists. Repeat motorists travel within or through the corridor daily ormore frequently for goods and services as well as employment opportunities. Although they utilizethe route for quick access to and from the trip origin and destination, over time they have aprolonged duration of view of their surroundings. Repeat motorists are more likely to respond tochanges in the viewshed as visual features are used as reference and landmarks for orientationand navigation. Speed on this corridor is both high for the I-390 travelers, and low on the adjacentaccess roads. Repeat motorists tend to be destination oriented and focused on traffic patterns.Viewer exposure is high due to the number of highway travelers and trips and sensitivity can behigh due to increased view duration.

Erie Canal UsersThe recreational use of the Erie Canal and the Canalway Trail includes boaters, bicyclists andpedestrians. Users of the canal would be traveling at slower, more leisurely speeds creating ahigher viewer exposure.

ResidentsResidents comprise a small but important viewer group within the project area. Residents aremade up of home-owners, college students/renters and long and short-term hospital patients.Homeowners in and around the project area have a more static, prolonged, detail-focused view ofthe road and local surroundings; therefore, viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity is high. Collegestudents/renters also have a more static, prolonged, detail-focused view of the road and localsurroundings, but their exposure to the project area is lessened by the fact that they are temporaryresidents making the viewer sensitivity less. Hospital patients have a shorter exposure time to theproject area making their viewer exposure and sensitivity minimal.


Page 10

Local Business People/Hotel GuestsEmployees of the adjacent local business, as well as hotel guest who can view the project areafrom their place of work or stay comprise this viewer group. They, like the residents, have a morestatic, prolonged detail focus of the project area and visual environment, however they are likely tofeel less ownership than residents. Their viewer exposure and sensitivity is moderate to lowcompared to residents.

8. Assessment of Impacts

Impacts to Landscape District I – I-390 & Erie Canal Corridor - (Viewpoints 7, 19, 21, & 22);

Viewpoint 7 (Figures 4 and 5) was taken from the Corporate Woods Office Park looking northeastat the proposed I-390 / East Henrietta Road off-ramp and the repositioned on-ramp. The new andrepositioned ramps will not significantly impact the visual character of the corridor. The increasein the amount of pavement and open space will result in the loss of minimal shrub and small treeplant material. Even with these changes, the character of the corridor will stay the same. That,combined with the high travel speeds on I-390, will create no visual impacts.

Viewpoint 19 (Figures 6 and 7) was taken from the Kendrick Road overpass looking southeast.This view will change based on the repositioning of the East River Road on and off ramps. Theshifting of the ramps will result in the removal of a significant patch of mature vegetation inbetween I-390 and East River Road, opening up the views to and from buildings along East RiverRoad. For repeat motorists and residents, there will be a measurable impact due to the removalof the patch of mature vegetation, which may function as a landmark or reference in the landscape.The patch of vegetation creates a contrasting setting within this otherwise open, largely non-vegetated stretch of corridor. The vegetation removal will reduce the visual variety of the corridorand result in further homogenization of the visual character of the corridor.

There may be minor impacts to the other viewer groups that are more sensitive to visual quality ofthe corridor as the removal of the vegetation decreases the contrast and variety of the landscapewithin the project area.

Viewpoint 21 (Figures 8 and 9) was taken from the West Henrietta – I-390 North on-ramp lookingnorthwest. This viewpoint shows the proposed 6.5' to 8.5’ height noise wall along the back edgeof the residential properties on Westmoreland Drive. The addition of the noise wall will notsignificantly change the view from the I-390-on-ramp. In spring, summer and fall, the wall will beshielded by dense vegetation. In the winter months, the vegetation will offer filtered views for thenew noise wall. That, combined with speeds on I-390 and the quick flow of traffic thru this areawill create little to no visual impacts from any viewer group.

Viewpoint 22 (Figures 10 and 11) was taken from the Kendrick Road overpass looking northwest.The introduction of the new I-390 south on-ramp will obscure, to varying degrees, the view of thecanal, which is depressed in the landscape, from I-390 for a short distance. Due to high travelspeeds, the visual impact to motorists from I-390 would be minimal. For pedestrians andmotorists on Kendrick Road, these will be minor to moderate visual impacts. Kendrick Roadbridge will no longer be a continuous structure/corridor over the canal and the expressway. Thebridge will be interrupted with the new I-390 northbound on-ramp, increasing the dominance ofKendrick Road and the built environment in general with the pier-supported elevated rampadjacent to the canal. The Lehigh Valley Trail-West Branch, which currently runs along the westside of Kendrick Road, will be impacted with this new vehicle access to I-390.


Page 11

The most impact will be experienced from the Erie Canal and trail users. The new I-390northbound on-ramp will introduce additional structure in an area already dominated by the I-390corridor, concrete canal walls, the canal guard gate and lock, and the Kendrick Road overpass. Inaddition, the new on-ramp will add additional vertical edge to the south side of the canal, creatinga narrower corridor that interferes with views to the south. The visual quality impacts to the ErieCanal and trail users are moderate to significant for this section of the project area.

Impacts to Landscape District II – Residential – (Viewpoint 20);

Viewpoint 20 (Figures 12 and 13) was taken from the Westmoreland Drive / Castleman Roadintersection looking southeast. This view shows the proposed noise wall along the back propertyline of the residence on Westmoreland Drive. The Erie Canal and I-390 are behind this walldepressed into the landscape at the bottom of a steep highly vegetated slope. In the spring,summer and fall months, the wall will be shielded by dense vegetation. In the winter months, thedormant vegetation will created a filtered view of the wall. The visual impact of the wall will beminimal for those within the corridor.

Impacts to Landscape District III – Commercial and Institutional - (Viewpoint 2);

Viewpoint 2 (Figures 14 and 15) shows the potential visual impacts from the Monroe CountyHealth Department building entrance. The new on-ramp will require the taking of a portion of theexisting parking lot and the removal of vegetation that currently buffers the West Henrietta bridgeand I-390 from view. The proposed on-ramp will eliminate existing vegetation and introduceconcrete barrier walls, which will create a hardscaped edge to the parking lot. The new on-rampmay also open views to West Henrietta Road with partial removal of the dense vegetation on thenorth side of the canal. The visual changes to this area will be significant; however, the visualimpact will be minimal to moderate with a slight decrease in visual quality based on the existingland use and affected viewer group(s).

I-390 Interchange Improvements at Route 15A and Route15 Visual Impact Assessment

FIGU

RE

4 Photosims - VP-7- Existing

Looking Northeast From Corporate Woods Office Park


FIGU

RE

5 Photosims - VP-7- Proposed

Looking Northeast From Corporate Woods Office Park


FIGU

RE

6 Photosims - VP-19 - Existing

Looking Southeast From Kendrick Road Overpass


FIGU

RE

7 Photosims - VP-19 - Proposed

Looking Southeast From Kendrick Road Overpass


FIGU

RE


Looking Northwest From West Henrietta - I-390 North On-ramp


FIGU

RE


Looking Northwest From West Henrietta - I-390 North On-ramp


FIGU

RE


Looking Northwest From Kendrick Road Overpass


FIGU

RE


Looking Northwest From Kendrick Road Overpass


FIGU

RE


Looking Southeast From Westmoreland Drive / Castleman Road Intersection


FIGU

RE


Looking Southeast From Westmoreland Drive / Castleman Road Intersection


FIGU

RE


Looking Soutwest From Monroe County Health Department


FIGU

RE


Looking Soutwest From Monroe County Health Department


Page 24

9. Mitigation

This project will not significantly alter the land use or visual character of the project site. However avariety of design techniques can be employed to help decrease any adverse impacts. The following isa list of potential mitigation measures that can help reduce adverse impacts.

Provide plantings as visual buffers to soften new structural features and hardscapes.Provide visual buffer plantings on slopes as practicable in and around on/off-ramps, especiallyat the Kendrick Road on-ramp near the canal and at the Monroe County Health Departmentparking lot.Color and or texture the noise wall to blend in with surrounding existing conditions.Maintain as much existing vegetation as is practical during construction, especially on thesteep slope areas in conjunction with the noise wall installation.Replace lost plantings, especially within the I-390 corridor.Provide context-appropriate decorative wall treatments for new surfaces.Special attention should be given to new or rehabilitated bridges that span over the Erie Canal.New bridges should be distinct from existing historic structures but nonetheless detailedappropriately for the historic canal setting.Identify potential opportunities for gateways, particularly at East and West Henrietta Roads, orother special treatments at these key intersections. Public and stakeholder involvement (forexample: affected residents, local merchant associations, Monroe Community College, City ofRochester, Town of Brighton, Monroe Community Hospital, major landowners, etc.) can assistin determining key treatment areas as well as thematic treatment concepts.

10. Summary

The nature of the proposed project (new ramps/interchange improvements) occurs on an existingmajor interstate expressway along a relatively uniform stretch of corridor between the City ofRochester and the Town of Brighton. The proposed action will in most cases not result in a significantvisual impact to the project area. The addition of the new or reconfigured on/off ramps willincrementally add to the existing visual dominance of the interstate corridor with the addition ofassociated structures (retaining walls, noise walls, ramp support columns, new bridge over the canal).Some of the improvements are reconfigurations or replacements and therefore will not necessarilyresult in net additional impacts.

Noted visual impacts can be mitigated to a large extent with careful construction practices aimed atpreserving existing vegetation, supplemental landscape plants in critical impact areas, and byincorporating appropriate context-sensitive design features to enhance the visual environment andquality of the project corridor.


Page 25

11. References

Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, American Society of Landscape Architects,Federal Highway Administration Contract DOT-FH-9694.Visual Simulation – A User’s Guide For Architects, Engineers, and Planners, Stephen R. J.Sheppard, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989.Visual Values for the Highway User – An Engineer’s Workbook, Peter L. Hornbeck, Garland A.Okerlund, Jr., Landscape Architecture Research Office, Harvard University.Visual Resources Assessment Procedure for US Army Corps of Engineers, Richard C.Smardon, James F. Palmer, Alfred Knopf, Kate Grinde, State University of New York,Syracuse, NY, 1988.Prototype Visual Impact Assessment Manual, Richard C. Smardon, Stephen R. Sheppard,Sarah Newman, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, 1979.

The DEC Policy System, "Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts", July 31, 2000, Article 8,49, Department Id: DEP-00-2, Division of Environmental Permits, and NYS Department ofEnvironmental Conservation.Foundation for Visual Project Analysis, Richard C Smardon, James F. Palmer, John PFelleman

TECHNCIAL APPENDIX TA-4.6 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT · 2012. 7. 11. · DRAFT DESIGN REPORT August 2010 TECHNCIAL APPENDIX TA-4.6 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Access 390

Documents