Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 7 of 19 <br />6. The study has identified several areas where glint and glare will be an issue. The conclusion <br />section of the report, only offered one solution to alleviate the after-image from glint and glare, <br />which was to construct a barrier. The current landscaping plan does not provide a visual barrier <br />that will obstruct the view of the panels. <br />7. The study should analyze the effectiveness of the proposed screening to determine if the <br />method of screening will be effective. Based on the report notes, it appears that the current <br />analysis noted several areas with issues when the site has been evaluated with a 10 foot high <br />vegetative buffer around the property. <br /> <br />Visual Impact Analysis <br />1. The purpose of the report was not clear. The analysis did not have a report summary or the <br />name of the firm that prepared the document <br />2. The photos provided with the report clearly show that there are unobstructed views of the <br />Solar Farm from the Stewart Track and Vanderburg Estates Subdivision. <br />3. The Analysis does not provide any recommendations for screening of the views shown in the <br />report. <br />4. The analysis does not evaluate any of the other residential structures a djacent to the project. <br />There are numerous structures that have the potential to see the project due to reduced <br />buffers and a reduction in the proposed buffer plantings. <br /> <br />Executive Summary - Other CUP Requirements <br />1. The statement concerning the US Army Corp of Engineers findings is not correct. The Corp did <br />not issue a statement that no waters of the US were disturbed in violation of the US Clean <br />Water Act and no further action is needed. Kleinfelder’s emails requested a No Permit Required <br />letter and stated that the developer used the existing road in the early phases of the project <br />without any improvements. The Corp replied if there would not be an impact or potential <br />impact to US waters, then a No Permit Required letter is not required for the project bein g <br />proposed. <br /> <br />Based on the emails and the statement that the road will not be used, no additional activity <br />concerning permitting should be required. Any future use by the landowner will need to be <br />evaluated by the Corp of Engineers for compliance with existing laws and exemptions. <br /> <br />2. The statement concerning the glare study and the mitigation of impacts by existing vegetation <br />is not correct. The study indicates that there are several areas where glare is an issue and that <br />vegetation screening could be used to mitigate the issue. <br /> <br />A response letter from the developer or engineer should be provided with the resubmittal package. <br />The letter should document how the issues noted in the comments listed above were addressed. The <br />letter should also list the revisions that were made to the drawings and provide the locations where <br />the revisions were made. <br /> <br />Complying with the above comments does not relieve the Developer of the responsibility of complying <br />with any and all local, state, or federal regulations co ncerning this development.