Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />issues. But, it effectively uses the word all, it is related to the hazards associated with the glint <br />and glare. The statements and conclusions are written that some glare may be acceptable. As I <br />mentioned before, I am not a glint and glare expert. My comments are based off of what is in the <br />report where they have identified potential areas of glare. I have been out there today, to see <br />what is visible from each of these contact points. There are still some areas where items that <br />were identified as a temporary hazard are still visible, because of terrain. Panels are high, the <br />roads are high, and the landscaping is low because of the locations of utility lines or at least <br />where they planted the landscape. <br />He said part of the item is, is going to be a question of what is acceptable when it comes to <br />temporary glare. The applicant, earlier has said, you know, there is concern that we are looking <br />at, is any visible acceptable. There is a not a numerical standard generated in the Ordinance, <br />there is not a numerical valuation in the report. The report makes a mention, a reference to it <br />complies with FAA standards, but it did not make a reference to which standard that was. They <br />have provided some information to me tonight with a link to where those standards are held. But, <br />the report still does not document at what level it is acceptable to have this temporary glare. They <br />only provided three levels of hazards, which was a green, red, and a yellow, and the red was <br />permanent blindness or a permanent damage to a retina. Ms. Webb is not sure if this is a question <br />of Staff or the board making a decision on it again. <br />He still has some concerns about one or two houses on the western side of the site that face north <br />and south. He is not sure that they have been evaluated for potential glint and glare. They did <br />look at the areas on the western side and they do not face the panels in a direction that glint and <br />glare. He thinks that part has been satisfied with our previous comments. But, on the northern <br />end and the southern end, there are houses that face looking at the panels . The panel directions, <br />he thinks potentially, may have glint and glare. These are also some areas where there are other <br />Issues. <br />The way the report is written, it concludes that several of the positions were determined to have <br />potential for after-image to glint and glare. It does not offer the solution to prevent it, but it does <br />offer suggestions. <br />One potential solution to alleviate the after image that can be caused from the glint and glare, <br />would be to construct a barrier, such as a landscape screening in the areas, so the line of site is <br />obstructed in the nearby observation points. He said that ignores part ofthe supplemental <br />beginning of the page, which says that no glint or glare visible by human observer at each and <br />every point. There are parts that are visible, that are not obstructed by landscaping. You know, if <br />it is not visible, then a barrier is not needed, but the way he reads it, if it is visible, then a barrier <br />is needed. <br />He said only at the points where they have identified where there is glint and glare issue, are the <br />ones he is focusing on, not around the complete site. That is the problem, I guess , I am coming <br />up with, as far as where the study says it identifies a hazard but then there is still a potential <br />Issue. <br />20