GIS PROJECT PROFILE

Proposed Lowe’s, Ticonderoga, NY
Project:  Visual Impact Study

Introduction

The Lowe’s Corporation proposed to build a home improvement center in Ticonderoga, New York, to service an area with no similar retail outlet within 50 miles. While this town is located within the Adirondack Park boundary, the selected site itself is in a Park land-use area designated as a “Hamlet,” which does allow for selected development. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) regulates projects that exceed certain height thresholds or impact APA jurisdictional wetlands, which this proposed development does on both counts. The project was granted approvals by the local municipal planning board, contingent upon receiving a permit from the APA.

Lowe’s signs became the impasse. APA land-use regulations limit signage area to 60 square feet (total of two signs, externally illuminated), 20 feet or less above the ground. Lowe’s standard signage totals 453 square feet (three building-mounted signs, 35 feet above ground level) excluding any freestanding signs. 

Lowe’s management feels that surrounding topography, vegetation, existing buildings and general street traffic combined with the store’s 800-foot setback from the highway will render APA-compliant signage ineffective, and hence will jeopardize the store’s success, a risk they are unwilling to take.  Industry studies support the importance of appropriate visible signage for brand recognition and financial success.  Existing businesses adjacent to the proposed site have signs well in excess of APA limits – they were not subject to review since other thresholds were not exceeded. 

Lowe’s offered to compromise with one 245-square-foot internally-illuminated building-mounted sign 30.6 feet above ground level plus one 20-square-foot externally-illuminated freestanding sign 19.5 feet above ground level. These do not conform to APA regulations, and a variance application is required for this exception. 

C.T. Male Associates was asked to provide evidence for the variance application showing that signage allowed under APA regulations will be ineffective, and that proposed signage will have minimal impact on community aesthetics given surrounding obstructions. 

 

Project Approach

The selected site abuts a Wal-Mart service center and is within a commercial strip along Wicker Street, as shown on Figure 1. As the proposed building will be set back more than 800 feet from the street, the 40-square-foot sign dictated by APA regulations would be virtually undetectable by motorists, as shown in the scaled rendering in Figure 2. Lowe’s standard internally illuminated signage includes the 348-square-foot Lowe’s sign, a 60-square-foot Indoor Lumber sign and a 45-square-foot Garden Center sign. The variance application is for the compromise 265 square feet of total sign area, and Lowe’s will not build without variance approval. 

 

Figure 1:  Site location

 
Figure 2:  40-square-foot building-mounted sign plus freestanding 2-square-foot sign.

 

Sign visibility is impaired by surrounding buildings and structures, trees, parked vehicles and general streetscape features in addition to topography. C.T. Male recognized that traditional topography-based viewshed analysis which does not incorporate man-made features would be inadequate in this case, and instead determined to build a more appropriate model to realistically simulate the visual impact of Lowe’s signage on the surrounding landscape. 

Our survey group had already located landscape features and point elevations for Lowe’s site plan. These results and other geographic data from public sources were assembled in GIS, using Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) ArcGIS 9.1. The USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM), verified by survey data, was used for base elevations and to calculate 10-foot elevation contours. Step one in the visual impact analysis was simple inspection of the photo-map to determine where signs were not obviously blocked from view.  Results are shown as Figure 3. 

Figure 3: Visibility determined by map inspection. Green zones indicate where at least one sign will be visible.

 

Taylor J. McDermott P.E., representative of Lowe’s, used the map above (Figure 3) to drive along Routes 74 and 22 and Wicker Street, stopping to take photographs looking towards the proposed site. At the same time Mr. McDermott used his recreational grade GPS receiver to obtain latitude and longitude values at each photo point. These photo locations were added to the GIS project and the hard copy plot shown greatly reduced as Figure 4 became part of the variance application. These photos showed where Lowe’s signs could be visible, and generally agreed with the initial analysis in Figure 3. However, this method did not indicate how the signs would appear to potential customers and the public traveling on surrounding roads.

Figure 4: Photo location and direction shown with each photo. (Photos dated January and February, 2006)

 

As visualization from multiple viewpoints requires 3D analysis, C.T. Male’s GIS Group developed a 3D model using ESRI’s 3D Analyst extension, with the survey-verified DEM as the 3D elevation base. To convincingly include the Lowe’s building, C.T. Male’s Architectural Group took Lowe’s 3D AutoCAD building model and made a Sketchup™ symbol file, which was imported into the 3D GIS model. This method accurately maintained the scale and proportions of the building as it was inserted over the CAD-layer footprint in the correct geographic location. 

The aerial mosaic was draped over the DEM to give the model texture. However, aerial photography flattens landscape, depicting buildings as one-dimensional footprints, trees as shadows, and vehicles as various colored pixel configurations. To make the model appear realistic, it was necessary to add these features as 3D symbols. However, as time, cost and computer resource limitations precluded creating convincing architectural models of surrounding businesses, we instead inserted location points for existing building centers, using the aerial photo as the base map. Building dimensions were estimated from the photos taken by Mr. McDermott and from the aerial photo building footprints. ESRI’s standard 3D symbology was used to approximate how these structures, as well as trees, other signs and parked vehicles, appeared.  While symbol selection was entirely sufficient to show the correct proportions and heights of existing features, Wal-Mart looks like a concrete box in standard ESRI symbology. This does not affect the visibility-blocking aspect of the business, as shown in Figure 5. The resulting ESRI 3D scene was presented to the APA at a preliminary meeting at APA offices in Ray Brook.

Figure 5: 3D scene, showing Lowe's as symbolized by a Sketchup symbol, and other features by ESRI 3D symbols.

 

While the “live” 3D scene was recognized as an innovative and comprehensive visualization of the potential signage impact, APA staff requested that an identical but complete perspective be presented to each variance reviewer, such that all reviewers were looking at the same interpretation. C.T. Male’s GIS Group suggested that reviewers be given a CD containing animation videos from each photo point location, showing driver-height perspective as a drive-by or as a panoramic view of the Lowe’s frontage. These would be presented in PowerPoint format such that the user could start and stop each animation with a mouse-click. 

This PowerPoint presentation contains:
a. A general overview map showing photo and video locations.
b. Metadata: details of how the videos were made, and where the data came from.
c. Thirteen point locations each showing:

• A detailed map close-up of each set of photo points, starting on Wicker Street and moving northwards.
• Photographs taken by Mr. McDermott during January and February, 2006.
• A video made from the 3D model using ArcGIS 9.1 and 3D Analyst, illustrating the dynamic drive-by or animated panorama scene from each point location.  As the viewer left mouse-clicks within the slide, the video starts. A right mouse-click pauses the animation.

d. A vertical exaggeration factor of 2 is used in the 3D model. This means that distances in the vertical direction are double those measured along the ground.  This is for graphic effect – all vertical measurements are exaggerated by the same factor, such that the relationship between objects remains consistent.

e. A disclaimer indicates that this is a MODEL only, and cannot account for the following:

• Atmospheric conditions.
• Background landscapes such as mountains.
• General streetscapes including power poles, traffic, power lines, street signs, shadows, clouds, glare or other conditions that impact real-life visibility.
• Objects appear closer in the model than they are in reality.
• The size of the buildings near the proposed Lowe’s site may be underestimated due to symbology limitations.

This model represents the most conservative case, illustrating what can be seen if the above impediments are excluded.  In reality, the signs will be less visible than shown.

 

Conclusions

This decision represents a delicate balance between preserving Adirondack Park ambiance within the Town of Ticonderoga versus providing the residents with much needed employment opportunities and the chance to buy home improvement products without driving at least 50 miles. This is the balance between conservation and controlled economic development. The PowerPoint presentation on a set of CDs allows each APA reviewer of Lowe’s variance application to see exactly the same dynamic interactive 3D model of how the proposed sign will look in relation to the landscape, and the decision can be made based on landscape and anticipated scenery.