Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700018 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2017-10-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 October 6, 2017 Mr. Seth Maughan, Dir. of Projects SolUnesco, LLC 1818 Library St., Suite 500 Reston VA 20190 RE: SP201700018 Rivanna Solar Project Mr. Maughan -- Thank you for the recent submittal for this special use permit. Please find review comments for the application included in this letter. Also note the section regarding notification fees at the end of this letter. Review Comments Planning Site Layout and Design o The off-site entrance to the existing substation is labelled "Proposed Use of Existing Access." Please note Zoning comments about use of the substation parcel. Please clarify whether or not this entrance will be used, and whether this would be temporary (construction) or permanent use. o Another entrance site on Buck Island Road is labelled "Alternative Existing Access Option." The plan should either state that this entrance will be used (for construction, or for permanent use, or both), or that it will be closed. o In previous discussions, there was some mention of using a temporary construction entrance on Route 53. If you plan to use a temporary construction entrance, please show it on the conceptual plan. o Please provide an illustration or plan showing approximately what the layout of panels vs. open areas within the development envelopes will look like. o The section on decommissioning mentions access roads, but no such roads are shown on the plan, either within or outside the solar -panel development envelopes. In previous meetings, we heard that post -construction access would be over grass. Please state whether or not roads are planned, and if so, please show them on the plan. o The general description of the project mentions a "main equipment yard," but that area is not described, and is not show on the plan. Please include a text description of what will be included in that equipment yard and show it on the plan. o The narrative states that the inverters will be placed "in the center so that no noise will be audible from the perimeter." Please show an envelope for possible inverter locations on the plan. o Beginning in 2002, aerial photos show that there is a pond on parcel 93-47J. It is unclear, but it appears that the dam and grading for the pond might have extended onto the solar - farm parcel, or come very close. Do you have survey data that establishes whether or not that dam is on the SP property? o There is a utility line, presumably with a utility easement, over the property along Route 53. Please show this line and easement on the conceptual plan to help establish where screening and other features can and cannot be installed along Route 53. o Please state whether or not any lighting will be installed on the site, and if so, where and of what design. o Fencing: The proposed design creates very large fenced enclosures. ■ Please describe the purpose of the seven -foot fencing around the development envelopes (security, prevention of wildlife access, etc.). A fence of that height seems unlikely to keep out trespassers or deer, who could easily get over it. Could the fencing be avoided? ■ If fencing is needed, what measures are proposed to prevent wildlife from being caught within the enclosures? While deer can often clear a fence of the proposed height, tubes or passages for smaller animals would be appropriate. Screening and Visibility From Adjacent Sites and Route 53 o Under the current conceptual plan, screening of the site from Route 53 (the Entrance Corridor) is highly dependent on existing tree cover located on other properties that are not controlled by the applicant. If the owners of those properties, who will not be bound by conditions of the special use permit, remove their trees in the future, that screening will be lost. ■ The development envelope adjacent to parcels 93-47E and 93-47J should be pulled at least 50 feet into the project parcel, and the screening to be planted along Route 53 should be wrapped around the envelope into these areas. (Note that the screening provided by the trees on 93-47J is relatively ineffective, as much of the understory has been cleared on that parcel.) ■ The portion of the development envelope that extends between parcels 93-47M and 94-47N1 should also be reduced by at least 50 feet on the east and west sides to allow for screening trees to be planted. Or, use of that part of the property is not critical, the development envelope could be pulled back at least as far as the rear property line of parcel 93-47M to reduce impacts on the Entrance Corridor. o While the use of native species is appropriate and appreciated, the proposed screening plantings along Route 53 need to be re -designed for more effective screening: ■ The current design is effectively one row deep, which is ineffective. A staggered design at least two rows deep (without "gaps" of grasses) should be used. The design should emulate naturalistic distributions of a mix of tree and shrub species, rather than a row of grouped species of trees. Deeper planting zones would allow the use of more deciduous tree species. Please consider expanding the screening plantings out into the open strip adjacent to Route 53, to better blend with the existing trees along the road. ■ Screening should have height differentiation and should incorporate undergrowth to mitigate visibility. Lower shrubs should be planted as close to the Entrance Corridor as possible, followed by mid-sized and large trees. ■ More detailed guidance will be forthcoming from the Architectural Review Board's comments on this project. Please plan to incorporate that information into your next resubmittal. o The application narrative mentions that screening trees that die during the life of of the project would be replaced by the applicant. This is likely to be a recommended condition of approval. o No screening is provided between the substation parcel and the development envelope. As there is some visibility across the substation parcel from Route 53, screening should be shown on the plan. Visibility From Other RA Sites o The application checklist requested "photo simulations" of the appearance of the site from culturally -important viewpoints such as Monticello, James Monroe's Highland, etc. The application packet included photographs taken from those sites and Carter Mountain Orchard. o The location of the proposed solar facility was indicated on the submitted photographs. However, no simulated view of the facility was included. It is not clear if this is because the application is asserting that the facility would not be visible, or because only a general indication of location was intended. ■ Estimates of horizontal viewing angle (approximately 12.9 degrees from Monticello, 13.7 degrees from Highland) suggest that the horizontal size of the facility would be enough to be visible from the important sites, despite the fact that the facility is not shown in the simulations. For comparison, sites known to be visible from Monticello include the State Farm building (10.9 degrees approximate horizontal viewing angle), the main Martha Jefferson hospital building (7.6 degrees), and the main Westminster -Canterbury building (6.5 degrees). Obviously, those are massive structures and are closer to the elevation of Monticello, so we don't intend any comparison in vertical character. The large size of the solar facility would make its apparent width greater than that of the buildings mentioned above. However, the lower elevation of the site, the low-lying nature of the solar panels, the color of the panels, and the terrain might make the facility less visible than the taller and more massive buildings mentioned above. Assuming this is your contention, please state it and provide justification. Distance and atmospheric effects could help to reduce visibility of the solar facility. However, the submitted photos were taken on very hazy days, so they are a "best -case scenario." Please submit photographs taken in clear weather, with indications of the actual apparent size of the facility shown on the photograph, rather than just ellipses indicating the location. Also, photos of the undeveloped site, especially without graphics of the facility edited in, will not be sufficient to analyze the visual impact of the facility. If you have or can get views of similar solar facilities from high viewpoints or aircraft that have a similar point of view to the view of the proposed site from Monticello, Highland, etc., those would provide a useful comparison. Also, if there are solar sites in Virginia that you could recommend that County staff could visit to get a similar view, please let us know. Zonm o Please provide documentation of your contacts with and feedback from Monticello regarding visibility of this project and impacts on that World Heritage Site. Impacts On Adjacent Properties o The narrative states that the only noise source on the site will be inverters, which will produce noise "roughly equal to a household dishwasher." ■ As noted above, the plan should show where this equipment will be located. ■ How many inverters will be installed on site? ■ Please quantify the total noise level in decibels from all inverters at the inverter location during operation of all inverters. ■ Please specify the distance from the inverter location at which the total noise level produced by the inverters will drop to the permitted noise level (60 dBA). ■ Please confirm that the inverters will only create noise during daylight operation of the solar panels. On-site Vegetation o On the conceptual plan, existing wooded areas within the site should be labeled or patterned to show whether they will be removed or will remain o What is the source for the "Existing Wetlands" shown on the conceptual plan? o The application narrative states that "all cleared areas on the interior of the project, including below the panels, will be seeded with a native grass/wildflower mix." Native plantings are a positive approach for this project. We just want to make sure we have enough details to make sure we understand the approach and how it will work. ■ Please provide any information you have on the commercial availability of the mixes you might use. ■ What information do you have on the viability of these plant mixes under the shade of the panels? How well do the plants survive, and how do they withstand access and maintenance activities, given the limited light access? ■ If use of native seed mixes is required as a condition of approval, do you foresee maintenance or erosion problems that might lead to a request to amend that condition of approval in the future? Has this approach been used at other solar facilities? Safety etc. o Please provide any available information on (1) fire hazards and/or frequency of emergency -service needs and (2) hazardous -chemical content of the inverters or any other equipment used as part of the facility, if any. o It appears that the site is only planned to be used for daylight generation of energy. Are there any plans for on-site storage of generated power (battery facilities, etc.)? o Are any cleaning chemicals (other than water) used for cleaning and maintenance of the panels during normal use? If so, how are they disposed of? Please see attached memo. Architectural Review Board This proposal will be reviewed by the ARB on October 16, 2017. Comments will be provided after that meeting. En ing eering No objection Fire/Rescue No objection Virginiapartment of Transportation 1. Based on conversations with the applicant it appears likely that the proposed site would qualify as a low-volume commercial entrance. Trip generation should be provided to confirm this. Note that low-volume commercial entrances require stopping sight distance. 2. Entrance geometry must be provided on the Site Plan. 3. Note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. Action After Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" memo that is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. Note that, as listed on the form, further resubmittals for these applications will require a fee of $538. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $252 Cost for newspaper advertisement $215 Cost for notification of adjoining owners $467 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is needed: $252 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $719 Total amount for all notifications. Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at sclark@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3249. Sincerely, Scott Clark Senior Planner, Planning Division DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found here. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SPO Fee AmauffL$ Dare Paid BV %ola? Becemi N Ckm By Resubmittal of information for it Special Use Pumit PRUJEC-f NCHBER THAT HAS SEEN ASSIGNED: SDP201 6-02 Commonwealth Office Owner/Applicant Most Read and Sign I hereby certi6- that the information provided %%ith this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Date Print Alamc Daytime phone number of Signatory FEES to be paid after application For original Special Use Permit fee of $1,1175 ❑ First resubmission (T4 BE PAID WHEN THE RESt'B_HISSION IS %QLDE TO INTAKE STAFF) Fret ❑ Each additional resubrnission (T4 BE PAID WHEN THE RESUB MSIOhti 151E+1DE TO WTA[a STAFF) For original Special Use Permit fee of $2,1100 Id First resubmission (T4 BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMIS.SIO.NIS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) Free Each additional resubmission (T4 BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS NIADE TO INTAKE STAFFI 1$1,075 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 N-lelodre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax- (434) 972-4126 Memorandum To: Scott Clark, Senior Planner From: Andrew Knuppel, Planner Division: Zoning Date: September 26, 2017 Subject: Initial Review Comments for SP201700018 Rivanna Solar Project The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application. 1. The provided Conceptual Layout shows a proposed access to the site from Route 53 via the Dominion Mount Eagle Substation parcel (TMP 93-47L). This access road would be considered an accessory use to the solar energy system primary use, however, this accessory use must be "located upon land zoned to allow the primary use" per the definition of "accessory use, building, or structure" in section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to use the proposed access from Route 53, the substation parcel must also be zoned to allow a solar energy system via Special Use Permit, and must included in this application. 2. Section 5.5 of the application references the noise generated by inverters. Per section 4.18 of the Zoning Ordinance, maximum sound level in receiving zones (adjoining parcels) is 60 dBA during daytime hours (7:OOam-10:OOpm). Please provide more information on the duration and sound level of the noise being generated by inverters, as well as probable locations and distances from property lines. Note #2 on the provided Conceptual Layout states that "this project does not require parking or a stormwater detention facility at this time". Per section 4.12.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, which provides guidance for parking requirements for unscheduled uses, the Zoning Administrator shall determine the minimum number of required parking spaces. Considerations include "a total number of spaces sufficient to accommodate the vehicles of all employees of the establishment plus those of all persons who may be expected to visit the same at any one time". In order to make a determination, provide the above information and/or information demonstrating that parking will not be required for this use. 4. Section 5.1 of the application references a "main equipment yard". Please provide information about the location, size, and character of this yard. 5. Please provide information on the location and character of any temporary yards or areas that will be used during the construction phase. 6. Please provide information on proposed vehicular access to the three proposed solar development envelopes. 7. Section 5.1 of the application references the distribution line connecting the project's main equipment yard with the substation. Please provide information on the specifications of a distribution line that would run above ground, including height. 8. Note #3 on the provided Conceptual Layout states that "this project doesn't not anticipate significant grading". Please clarify where it is expected that grading may occur and how impacts on critical resources (critical slopes, wetlands, stream buffer), adjoining parcels, and remaining trees will be prevented. 9. Staff anticipates that the finalized access to the site will be relevant to potential conditions of approval. 10. Staff anticipates that procedures for decommissioning of the site will be relevant to potential conditions of approval. Some potential conditions drawn from a Larger -Scale Model Solar Ordinance provided by DEQ may include the submission of an initial Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan to the County Engineer, notification of the Zoning Administrator at the abandonment or discontinuance of the use, and complete physical removal of the project within 6 months (max) of abandonment.