Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />floodplain, which then triggered a floodplain development permit. The applicant has attempted to <br />submit an application, but it is still not where it needs to be. <br />What you see are staff comments, based on materials provided in hard copies to staff since the <br />February meeting. So, there are some corrections that need to be made. There is some <br />information that they talked about with FEMA that was not correct. The cover letter was not <br />submitted that describes the reason for asking for the plan. It is a project description of why they <br />have to do the permit. The highest BFE that Staff could find, using our best available data, which <br />is the new maps on site, is 504.1. The applicant references the BFE at the closest cross section of <br />Rocky River, not the floodplain on the site. So it is more about attention to detail and actually <br />using the data for the site. <br />Then from the engineering side, there would need to be a certification that all fill materials have <br />been removed from the 100-year floodplain, that the disturbed areas have been stabilized, and <br />then also that the applicant provides the revised information. You know, along the way, we have <br />also had some difficulty with getting signed and sealed drawings. So, you know, a complete <br />package that addresses all of our comments, along with the signed and sealed drawings. Mr. <br />Jurius Josh did the detailed review of the floodplain development permit and Mr. Webb also <br />reviewed it, if you have any specific questions related to the staff comments. <br />The Chair said at this time, are there any questions? There seems to be a lot of comments. Who <br />would speak to this? Is this Al or Mo or who? Mr. Jansen come on down. I just want to know <br />where this is all at and how you are going to fix it and when, I guess too. <br />Mr. Jansen said we have reengaged our third-party engineering firm on this. All of those <br />comments have been forwarded to them. It was decided for the sake of this meeting to have <br />things as static as possible and then address it moving forward. But, it has been addressed. Like I <br />said, comments have been forwarded to the engineering firm, being Kleinfelder, and we have <br />recognized the deficiencies and thanked staff for pointing those out to us. <br />The Chair asked if there were any questions. Okay. Thanks. Moving on, he would like to get <br />Wes up for the glare study. I guess there has been a revised glare study and that was done in <br />February of this year when we got it? <br />Mr. Webb thinks that is correct. <br />The Chair said is that good? <br />Mr. Webb said there were some changes made to the study, there was some information pulled <br />out of the previous reports, some profiles that showed what was visible and what was visible <br />within the site from each of the contact points. There were some revisions to the conclusions that <br />I think are in conflict to the way the Ordinance is written. The statement concerning what is <br />acceptable and what is not acceptable as far as glare is concerned. I would have to pull the <br />Ordinance up to get the correct wording for the way Cabarrus County has their glare and glint <br />19