RTC Visual Impact and Community Character

Transcription

1 Chapter 3.7: RTC Visual Impact and Community Character Comment 3.7-1: Response 3.7-1: The Campus portion of the Proposed Project will not be visible from several of these historic and important community resources. Particularly, it will not be visible from Burke Rehabilitation Center, Little Farm Building, Antony Road potential historic district, New York Presbyterian Hospital and the C.V. Rich Mansion/Women s Club of White Plains. The proposed Campus development will be visible from the Old Ridgeway School, Westchester Hills Golf Club and both the Gedney Farm and Murchison Place potential historic districts. The principal impact of the Campus development will be its scale. Although the Applicant is preserving the existing clubhouse, the new construction of buildings on Parcels A and D create a significantly greater building mass on the site than is found on the site now. (Habel 018, pg. 67) Comment noted. As described in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy entitled Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts, an assessment of visual impact must consider the overall context within which the sensitive resources are experienced and whether the general public s enjoyment or understanding of the resources are affected by a change in the context. The NYSDEC Program Policy states that mere visibility is not a threshold of significance. (See page 7-1 of the DEIS for additional description of the NYSDEC Program Policy). Comment 3.7-2: It is important to look at the relationship of the current FAR on the portion of the Project Site referred to as the Campus.... The FAR proposed by the Applicant is within the permitted FAR under the Zoning Ordinance when examined in terms of the Campus and the Project Site as a whole. However, the above table demonstrates that the Floor Area is concentrated along the Ridgeway frontage and therefore its impacts will be focused in this area. The FAR for Parcel A is more than triple that for the overall site of 0.04, and the FAR for Parcel D is more than double. (Habel 018, pg. 68) Response 3.7-2: Comment noted. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Parcels A and D, considered as individual lots pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, is below the permitted FAR in the R1-30 Zoning District and below the FAR of the residences abutting the Property, which are located in the R /16/13

2 French-American School of New York Zoning District. The Applicant has modified the Proposed Project to be in compliance with the City s Zoning requirements for building coverage and setback. The Applicant has also modified the buildings located on Parcels A and D. Table of FEIS Chapter 2.1 shows that the FAR on Parcels A and D are below the amount permitted. Parcels B and C have no buildings or structures adding to FAR. Comment 3.7-3: Response 3.7-3: Comment 3.7-4: Response 3.7-4: Comment 3.7-5: Response 3.7-5: A comment was received regarding the consistency of the Project's proposed building roofs with the surrounding community character. (D'Antona 104, pg. 2) The buildings in the Campus are generally proposed to have sloped roofs, as described in DEIS Chapter 1, Project Description, and illustrated in Figures , , , and Sloped roofs are being considered to be more in keeping with the residential structures surrounding the Project Site. The exception to this would be the gymnasium, which may have a barrel-vaulted roof, and the performing arts center, which may have a flat roof. In addition, flat portions of the roof toward the center of each building would be used to place air-cooled chillers. As discussed in DEIS Chapter 7, Visual Impact and Community Character, and DEIS Chapter 2, Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, the sloped exterior portions of the roof would provide screening for these chillers. A comment was received regarding the potential impacts from lighting within the Conservancy. (D'Antona 104, pg. 2) As noted in Chapter 7 of the DEIS, no lighting is proposed to be installed within the Conservancy. Only three (3) blue light emergency call boxes are proposed for security reasons. If the Modified Proposed Project with North Street Access or Bryant Avenue access is selected as the preferred Project, then a driveway would need to be constructed through Parcel D. This driveway would require lighting. Lighting fixtures on the access drive must be equipped with full light cut-off features to minimize visibility of light from adjoining streets and nearby residential properties. Comments were received stating that the parking lots proposed for the Conservancy are not adequately screened from nearby residences creating a substantial visual impact. (Jaffe 033, pg. 8; Jaffe 033, pg. 10) Comment noted. The design and screening of the small gravel parking lots proposed to be located on Parcel C and Parcel D need to be appropriate to mitigate visual impacts from residential homes. Appropriate placement of screening landscaping would be included in 09/16/

3 Chapter 3.7: Visual Impact and Community Character the landscaping plan, which will be approved by the approving agency with final approval of installation by the City s Tree Preservation Committee. Comment 3.7-6: Response 3.7-6: Comment 3.7-7: A comment was received stating that the renderings of the Conservancy in the DEIS are not reflective of what conditions will actually look like. (Lee & Lee 029, pg. 33; D'Antona 104, pg. 4) The DEIS provides examples of what the Conservancy would look like. As described in Chapter 1.0, the amount of the Site that would be publicly accessible would vary with each access option. The renderings showing the MPP/Ridgeway are reflective of the proposed conditions throughout the area covered by the Conservation Easement, which includes the Conservancy and the portion of the Campus subject to the Conservation Easement. The variation within each access option would be the placement of the access driveway, the location of the baseball field, and the size and area accessible to the public. Since the area covered by the Conservation Easement will be a dynamic vegetated area, the appearance will change seasonally and year by year. Any kiosks and shade structures, as well as the design and construction of the parking areas, will be subject to the approval of the approving agency during final Special Permit/Site Plan review. As with all renderings provided with applications, these renderings are approximations of the expected appearance of the areas of the Site outside of the Campus. Several comments were received regarding the visual impact of the Project in general terms, including the impact of additional traffic on Ridgeway, the overall change to community character from the change of use, and the impact of new construction. The Planning Advisor for the City of White Plains states that her review "has identified several potential significant adverse impacts, which have not been shown to have been mitigated." [Note: specific impacts raised by the Planning Advisor and from other commenters are addressed in subsequent comments and responses.] Other comments included, Increase[d] traffic has negative impacts on neighborhood aesthetics. Turning Ridgeway into a major thoroughfare to accommodate FASNY will have an inextricable impact on the character and feel of the neighborhood, causing us to substantially alter the way we live. How is it possible for a Campus so filled with new construction, large parking areas and the like and with so many aspects of lighting required not only for the buildings but for all the needed parking not be a fundamental change from the current use? (Levy PH2, pg. 422; Rosenzweig & Rosenzweig /16/13

4 French-American School of New York Response 3.7-7: 035, pg. 1; Younkin 066, pg. 1; D'Antona 104, pg. 2; Quinn 011, pg. 3; Johnsson 032, pg. 1; Habel 018, pg. 75) The Proposed Project would physically alter the Project Site. These alterations would change what the Project Site looks like and would change the view of the Project Site from existing uses. For the reasons stated below, and those set forth in DEIS Chapter 7 and within this FEIS, however, the visibility of the Modified Proposed Project (including all access options), and the change in appearance of the Project Site, would be minimized from the Proposed Project in the DEIS by building placement and the proposed Landscape Plan. Changes in views of the Project Site for the affected properties would include partial views of buildings and structures that are permitted under the applicable zoning. As described in the DEIS, and this FEIS, several mitigation measures, including building setbacks and an extensive landscaping program, would be implemented to mitigate the impacts of these Site alterations. The overall character of the neighborhood would still be single-family homes with institutional uses, including schools, occurring within and adjacent to the residential areas as well as other land uses such as religious institutions, the White Plains Women s Club, and the landscaping business on Ridgeway. With the MPP/Ridgeway, increases in traffic would, for the most part, be confined to Ridgeway. See Figure for examples of other collector streets in White Plains. As noted by the Deputy Commissioner of Parking for Transportation Engineering in his communication on the DEIS, the character of residential collector roads is different from the collector roads near the downtown. In response to comments regarding the character of proposed traffic improvements, and as discussed in Chapter 1.1 of this FEIS, FASNY has modified the MPP/Ridgeway to eliminate the traffic signal on Ridgeway at Driveway A. In addition, FASNY has modified the MPP/Ridgeway to replace the previously proposed traffic signal at Ridgeway and Hathaway Lane with a roundabout. Roundabouts have been used to safely manage traffic flow in residential neighborhoods. See Figure of this FEIS for photographs of a roundabout along a collector street adjacent to a residential area in Arlington, NY. The MPP/North Street or MPP/Bryant Avenue would require a new driveway through the middle of Parcel D. If either of these options are selected, this new driveway would be visible from residences abutting Parcel D and from residences on the western side of Hathaway Lane. However, the open space characteristics of the ponds and forested wetland would not be affected. 09/16/

5 Chapter 3.7: Visual Impact and Community Character Comment 3.7-8: Response 3.7-8: Comment 3.7-9: Response 3.7-9: A comment was received stating that DEIS Figures 7-2 and 7-3 do not show the proposed mitigation measures on Hathaway Lane. (Manning PH2, pg. 356) The MPP/Ridgeway does not propose a traffic signal at Hathaway Lane and Ridgeway. Instead, a new roundabout is proposed for that intersection. See Figure of this FEIS, which depicts how the roundabout would appear. See Figure and Figure for updated renderings that depict a portion of the proposed roundabout. The MPP/North Street or MPP/Bryant Avenue would have only limited service access from Ridgeway. The portion of Hathaway Lane south of 57 Hathaway Lane to Ridgeway would be demapped and conveyed to FASNY. This would then merge Parcels A and D. Comments were received regarding the general effects of the Proposed Project's lighting, including questioning whether any comparisons were done of before and after conditions. (Levy PH2, pg. 422; Majthenyi 020, pg. 1; Lee & Lee 029, pg. 1; Lee & Lee 029, pg. 14; D'Antona 104, pg. 3) As stated in DEIS Chapter 7, existing light levels on the Project Site were measured and compared to expected future light levels that would occur with the Proposed Project. As stated on pages 7-2 and 7-3 of the DEIS, existing light levels on the Project Site were measured with both interior and exterior lights on. Measurements were conducted on an evening with clear skies two days following a new moon. Light levels on the Project Site ranged from 0.0 foot candles (ft-c) to 6.5 ft-c directly under a wall mounted exterior light. Values at Site driveways or property edges ranged from 0.3 to 0.6 ft-c depending on the proximity of street lights on Ridgeway and were primarily affected by off-site streetlights. Values at the edge of the existing parking lots were typically 0.1 ft-c to 0.3 ft-c. Values in the vicinity of Site lighting (e.g., fence-mounted box light at tennis courts and spot lights at tennis house) were 0.6 ft-c and 0.4 ft-c. As discussed in DEIS Chapter 7, the Proposed Project would include exterior lighting of the buildings, driveways, and parking areas. As discussed in the DEIS on page 7-9, these fixtures would have full-cut off shields to prevent the source of light from being visible from surrounding properties. In addition, the extensive landscaping would also serve to partially shield the visibility of any interior lighting from locations beyond the Project Site. Figure of this FEIS indicates that proposed light levels within the parking lots and adjacent to buildings would be comparable to light levels within the existing parking lots. (The lighting analysis in Figure is based on the /16/13

6 French-American School of New York location of buildings and parking areas in the MPP/Ridgeway. Similar light levels around the Campus are expected for either the MPP/North Street or MPP/Bryant Avenue). Beyond the areas shown to be illuminated, it is anticipated that light levels would be 0.0 foot-candles, as with the existing conditions of the Property. There would be no lighting of the track, tennis courts, or any of the ball fields. There would be no lighting within the Conservancy since it would only be open and accessible to the public between dawn and dusk. Three (3) blue light emergency call boxes would be installed for public safety within the Conservancy. Finally, FASNY would program the lighting system to automatically turn off the majority of lights within the parking lot during over-night hours to further reduce the on-site lighting. Lighting that remained on would be for security only and subject to review by the Commissioner of Public Safety. Since the small, unlit parking area at Hathaway Lane and Ridgeway is legally non-conforming because it is located in the front yard setback, it should remain unlit or be provided with only low bollard lighting for safety and security reasons. Comment : Response : The Planning Advisor had the following specific comments regarding light levels of the Project Site. The existing parking area lighting levels are shown as generally between 0.2 foot candles and 0.4 foot candles. The proposed lighting levels are shown as between 1.5 and 5 foot candles. This is not consistent with the statement above that Proposed light levels within the parking lots and adjacent to buildings would be comparable to light levels within the existing parking lots. The Applicant shows an existing lighting level of 6.5 foot candles at the rear of the existing building which is not consistent with the other numbers provided and should be verified and described. (Habel 018, pg. 69) The light levels shown to the rear of the former Clubhouse and former Annex building on Figure 7-A in the DEIS are generally at the edge of the parking area, or within the golf course itself. The exception is the 6.5 ft-c reading. This level was taken within the parking lot, but much closer to the light source than other readings. (Similar readings would be expected in proximity to other light fixtures.) Therefore, it is expected that the light levels within the existing parking lots are between 6.5 ft-c and 0.3 ft-c since they represent the measurements closest to, and furthest from, the parking lot s light sources. 09/16/

7 Chapter 3.7: Visual Impact and Community Character Light levels within the parking lots of the Modified Proposed Project under all access options are expected to be similar to these existing conditions (see Figure 2.1-1). With the additional setbacks between proposed buildings and parking lots and adjoining residential property lines, the light from the Modified Proposed Project is not anticipated to spill much beyond the parking lots or driveways. The Lighting Plan has been designed not to spill beyond the Property boundaries. All lighting fixtures and photometric plans will be subject to the review of the Commissioner of Building, Commissioner of Planning, and the Environmental Officer. Landscaping which is designed to screen lighting impacts will be field located to ensure its proper placement consistent with the City s practice on other projects. Comment : Response : Comment : Response : Several comments were received stating that additional mitigation should be provided for the effects of the Proposed Project's lighting, including restrictions on night time and weekend lighting and athletic field lighting. The Planning Advisor states that lighting impacts on the Old Ridgeway School should be eliminated, parking areas should not be illuminated at night and on weekends, and additional landscaping (hedges) should be provided. (D'Antona 104, pg. 3; D'Antona 104, pg. 4; Quinn 011, pg. 4; Habel 018, pg. 69) As a condition of Special Permit/Site Plan approval, the final lighting plan, including night-time security lighting, will be reviewed and approved by the Commissioner of Building, Commissioner of Planning, and the Environmental Officer prior to issuance of a Building Permit, with night-time security lighting subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Public Safety. A comment was received regarding the methodology used for measuring existing light levels, including time of day, distance, and instrumentation (including calibration). (D'Antona 104, pg. 1) The Applicant has provided the following information in response to the comment regarding the methodology used by the Applicant for measuring existing lighting levels. On February 22, 2012, AKRF conducted an existing conditions assessment of light levels at the former Ridgeway Country Club. Light levels were obtained using an Extech Instruments Heavy Duty Foot Candle/Lux meter (Model No ). The meter was calibrated per factory instructions prior to initiating testing. Measurements were started at 6:20 PM and were completed at 7:00 PM. The published (New York Times) time of sunset was 5:38 PM. The waxing crescent moon (New Moon on February 21, First Quarter on /16/13

8 French-American School of New York February 29) set at 6:44 PM. Temperature was approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit at the start of measurements. Skies were clear with patchy clouds appearing in the west toward the end of the measurement period. Measurements of existing light levels were conducted with 1) only RCC exterior lights on, and 2) with exterior and interior lights on. RCC exterior lights included exterior box lights on the Clubhouse and Annex buildings, as well as spot lights on the tennis building. City of White Plains street lights along Ridgeway, Hathaway Lane, and Gedney Esplanade were operating as were multiple exterior box lights on the northern façade of the Westchester Hills Golf Club across Ridgeway. Interior lights and several exterior spot lights at residences fronting on Murchison Lane or Ridgeway were observed to be on during the testing period. Measured values with both exterior and interior lights on ranged from 0.0 ft-c within interior portions of Parcel A and Parcel B to 6.5 ft-c within the parking lot and directly underneath a wall-mounted exterior light. (See Figure 7-A of the DEIS). Values at Site driveways or property edges ranged from 0.3 ft-c to 0.6 ft-c depending on the proximity of street lights on Ridgeway, and were primarily affected by off-site streetlights. Values at the edge of the existing parking lots were typically 0.1 ft-c to 0.3 ft-c. Values in vicinity of Site lighting (e.g., fence-mounted box light at tennis courts and spot lights at tennis house) were 0.6 ft-c and 0.4 ft-c. While existing exterior light fixtures on the buildings were visible from edges of the Property (e.g., from the rear of properties fronting on Murchison Place), the visibility was screened by existing vegetation. Existing street lights on Ridgeway, Hathaway Lane, and Gedney Esplanade were more directly visible. Comment : Response : The proposed setbacks abutting residences along Murchison Place, Hotel Drive, Macy Road, Oxford Road, and any other residences should be increased. These homes will abut the ball fields, tennis courts, and running track. The fields should be reconfigured to increase the setbacks to at least 50 feet. The setback area should be heavily landscaped to provide the necessary screening and privacy from school usage. Earthen berms and fencing should be used where appropriate. (Quinn 011, pg. 4) The Modified Proposed Project increases setbacks from adjoining residential lot lines to 75 feet for all Project elements, including athletic fields. In addition, the proposed baseball field has been relocated from Parcel B to Parcel D. 09/16/

9 Chapter 3.7: Visual Impact and Community Character As shown in Figures and of this FEIS, views of the Modified Proposed Project from residences along Murchison Place and Hotel Drive would change. Instead of looking over fairways and greens, residences would now be looking over mostly grass athletic fields, and in the southern portion of the Site, a running track surrounding an athletic field. As described in DEIS Chapter 1, the proposed northern multi-purpose field on Parcel A and the proposed Softball/multipurpose field on Parcel A would be natural grass fields, much like the existing golf course. The southernmost multi-purpose field, within the running track, would be artificial turf. Similar to the existing condition, no lighting is proposed for these fields. No permanent bleachers or stands are proposed. In addition, as noted by the Planning Advisor, an extensive landscaping program is proposed to offer additional screening for neighboring residential properties (see Figures and 2.1-8). Additional details of this landscaping plan are provided in Drawings SP-20 to SP-23 of Appendix N of the DEIS. Comment : Response : Comment : Response : Comments were received regarding the landscaping included around the proposed Campus' parking lots. The City s Planning Advisor, in Comment , said that the landscaping "appears to conform" to the zoning requirement, but that a final determination would need to be made after the parking lots are re-sited to comply with setback requirements. The Planning Board stated that the landscaping and setbacks around the parking lots were inadequate. (Quinn 011, pg. 4) The Modified Proposed Project increases setbacks from adjoining residential uses from a minimum of 21 feet to a minimum of 75 feet for all Project elements, including parking lots. Setbacks from the parking lots to 57 Hathaway have been increased from 30 feet to 75 feet. Setbacks from the pre-existing non-conforming parking lots to 408 Ridgeway have been increased from one (1) foot to five (5) feet to 15 to 20 feet for the MPP/Ridgeway and to approximately 60 feet for the MPP/North Street and MPP/Bryant Avenue. As shown in Figure , the areas between the parking areas and these homes would be subject to an intensive landscaping program. Figures to of this FEIS provide photo-simulations of these areas with proposed landscaping after five years of growth. These photo-simulations demonstrate the buffering that would be achieved. A comment was received questioning whether the potential for light reflections from the buildings were considered. (D'Antona 104, pg. 3) The Proposed Project would utilize low-reflectivity glass. Therefore, reflections from glass windows were considered to be minimal. Any /16/13

10 French-American School of New York reflections from the Modified Proposed Project would be minimized due to the height of the proposed buildings, the relocation and redesign of the buildings from the DEIS, and the existing and proposed landscaping that surrounds the Site. Comment : Response : Comment : Response : Comment : Comments were received, including from the Planning Advisor, stating that the lighting impact on the single-family home on the corner of Gedney Esplanade and Hathaway Lane, should be mitigated to a greater extent. (Jaffe PH2, pg. 279; D'Antona 104, pg. 4; Habel 018, pg. 73) In response to this comment, as shown in Figure 2.1-1, lighting from the Modified Proposed Project parking lots and driveways would not spillover onto the residential property at the corner of Gedney Esplanade and Hathaway Lane. Further, as discussed in Chapter 1.0, and shown in Figure , the proposed parking lot in the northeast corner of Parcel A has been moved. It is now set back 75 feet from the residential property, as opposed to 30 feet as was previously shown. The number of parking spaces in this lot has been reduced from 184 to 168. Finally, as noted by the Planning Advisor, the Applicant is proposing an extensive landscaping program. As shown in Figure , the area between the proposed parking area and this residential property would be heavily landscaped to reduce the visual impacts, including from vehicle headlights, to the residential property. The youth soccer field and gardens are not considered structures under the Zoning Ordinance. It would, however, be appropriate to set both the soccer field and gardens back the 75 feet required for structures and parking to reduce the visual impacts on the homes across Hathaway Lane. (Habel 018, pg. 75) The Modified Proposed Project has increased setbacks from abutting residential properties to all Project elements to 75 feet. The FASNY gardens have been relocated to Parcel B. They would be a minimum of 75 feet from both the eastern and western property lines. The multipurpose field has been rotated and is now approximately 75 feet from FASNY s lot line, and approximately 135 feet from the lot line of the nearest residence across the street. North of the multi-purpose field is proposed a baseball field. The outfield would be closest to Hathaway Lane, thus the structure of the backstop would be approximately 310 feet from FASNY s lot line. The Applicant does not mention that properties at this intersection [Vantage Point 4] will also see and hear the drop off and pick up area at the Lower School. The parking lot and drop-off/ pick up areas for the 09/16/

11 Chapter 3.7: Visual Impact and Community Character Response : Comment : Response : Lower School are substantially larger than the existing parking lot at the corner of Hathaway Lane and Ridgeway. Although traffic will not be entering or exiting from these parking areas onto Gedney Esplanade or Hathaway north of its intersection with Gedney Esplanade, the AM and PM drop off and pick up period impacts will be very different from the existing conditions at these locations and, may result in significant adverse impacts to community character. (Habel 018, pg. 71) In response to this comment the Modified Proposed Project/Ridgeway eliminates the drop-off/pick-up area in front of the Lower School and pushes the Lower School further east into the Project Site. These changes would reduce the visibility of the Lower School, parking lots, and drop-off areas from Vantage Point 4, as well as from the singlefamily house at the corner of Gedney Esplanade and Hathaway Lane (see Figure 2.1-5). As stated in Chapter 2.1, Environmental Analysis: Modified Proposed Project/Ridgeway, the predicted noise level increases at the noise receptor sites due to vehicles accessing and parking in the Modified Proposed Project s parking lot would not exceed 2.0 dba and would have no appreciable effect on receptors per NYSDEC criteria. In addition, the parking lot closest to this vantage point has been reduced in size and further setback from the Property line. FASNY acknowledges that the proposed changes to Hathaway Lane will change the visual character of Hathaway Lane at this location [Vantage Point #5]. At this point, Hathaway Lane is a minor local street intersecting with another minor local street, Gedney Esplanade...This change to the character of Hathaway Lane is significant and is further intensified by the location of the parking on the site within what should be a 75 foot setback on the east side of Hathaway Lane. (Habel 018, pg. 72) As previously described, the setback for the parking area in the northeast of Parcel A has been increased from 30 feet to 75 feet (see Figure ). Additionally, the setback to the parking area to the east of Hathaway Lane for the Lower School has been increased from approximately 28 feet to 75 feet. The MPP/Ridgeway also removes the traffic signal from the intersection of Ridgeway and Hathaway Lane. Instead, FASNY proposes to install a roundabout, a traffic management feature often seen in residential neighborhoods (see Figure 1.1-9). The MPP/North Street and MPP/Bryant Avenue include demapping Hathaway Lane south of the driveway for 57 Hathaway Lane and merging that area into the Project Site /16/13

12 French-American School of New York Comment : Response : Comment : The Applicant represents that the visual impact of the buildings and athletic fields on Parcel A on the homes along the east side of Murchison Place would be similar to views of Burke Rehabilitation Hospital from the intersection of Heatherbloom Road and Macy Avenue". The Applicant should demonstrate this similarity with a comparative analysis of views. This comparison should show the distances of the Burke buildings and track on the northern side of Heatherbloom Road from the properties on the south side of Heatherbloom Road at the intersections with Burling Avenue, Sherman Avenue, and Macy Avenue. The City s GIS mapping system shows the Burke buildings, at their closest, to be 254 feet from the southern edge of Heatherbloom Road, and the track to be 154 feet. The main building at Burke is approximately 400 feet distant. This places the closest buildings on Parcel A lot of the FASNY site to be over 400 feet further from the properties to the west of Parcel A than are the buildings at Burke from the residences on Heatherbloom Road. However, the athletic fields on Parcel A lot are between only approximately 50 feet and 81 feet from the abutting single family properties. The baseball field on the Parcel B lot is significantly closer to the abutting homes than are the fields on the Parcel A lot. (Habel 018, pg. 74) As previously described, the athletic fields and track proposed for Parcel A have been moved so as to increase the setback from neighboring residential properties. The track and softball field are now proposed to be setback 75 feet, while the multi-purpose field is proposed to be set back approximately 105 feet (see Figure i-1). As described in the comment, the buildings of the Upper School are proposed to be more than 650 feet away from the rear of the residential properties on Murchison Place. This is over 400 feet greater than the distance between the southern edge of Heatherbloom Road and the buildings at Burke. Figures through document the distances of the Burke buildings and track on the northern side of Heatherbloom Road from the properties on the south side of Heatherbloom Road at the intersections with Burling Avenue, Sherman Avenue, and Macy Avenue. Why did FASNY omit and when will FASNY resubmit full visual impact data and vantage point presentations specifically for 57 Hathaway Lane including the full East, West and South vantage points from the 57 Hathaway Lane parcel itself? FASNY has dropped the Lee view south, south west and west by taking photos just south of the Lee residence. So you see west - but not the Lee's west. The same is true for the view south - its just west of the Lee residence. So its south but 09/16/

13 Ft. 200 Ft. 195 Ft. HEATHERBLOOM RD. BURLING AVE. SHERMAN AVE. MACY AVE FEET SCALE French-American School of New York Burke Hospital Comparison: Burling Avenue Figure 3.7-1

14 Ft. 230 Ft. MACY AVE. SHERMAN AVE. BURLING AVE. HEATHERBLOOM RD FEET SCALE French-American School of New York Burke Hospital Comparison: Sherman Avenue Figure 3.7-2

15 Ft. 440 Ft. 130 Ft. HEATHERBLOOM RD. BURLING AVE. SHERMAN AVE. MACY AVE FEET SCALE French-American School of New York Burke Hospital Comparison: Mid-Point Between Sherman Avenue & Macy Avenue Figure 3.7-3

16 Ft. 385 Ft. HEATHERBLOOM RD. BURLING AVE. SHERMAN AVE. MACY AVE FEET SCALE French-American School of New York Burke Hospital Comparison: Macy Avenue Figure 3.7-4

17 Ft. 105 Ft. 475 Ft. 340 Ft. 110 Ft. 460 Ft. 650 Ft. 700 Ft. 850 Ft. 75 Ft. 75 Ft FEET SCALE MPP/Ridgeway: Setbacks to Buildings and Athletic Facilities French-American School of New York Figure 3.7-5

18 Chapter 3.7: Visual Impact and Community Character Response : not the Lee's south and southwest- i.e. not a view of the massive multihundred car parking lot! See "Vantage Point #5 & 6" There is no Vantage Point of the Lee's eastern view at all. (Lee & Lee 029, pg. 3; Lee & Lee 029, pg. 33; D'Antona 104, pg. 3) The vantage points utilized for the visual analysis were chosen by the Lead Agency in this case, the Common Council. The views presented and described in Chapter 2.1, Environmental Analysis: Modified Proposed Project/Ridgeway, reasonably depict the changes in view and visual character that would occur from public vantage points surrounding the Project Site as well as from abutting residential properties /16/13