Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />Mr. Paxton said in your final report, which you are going to release I am sure, pending approval. <br />You are assuming that the landscape plan will correct the issues in yellow? <br />Mr. Healy is assuming it will mitigate those, so it will be within the line of sight of any glare, <br />which means it breaks it up and reduces its impact. <br />Mr . Dagenhart said but, that assumption is , if those points that you have picked, relative to the <br />road that does not take into consideration that this road is not straight or flat, as already <br />mentioned. That it could be 200 feet in either direction, how do you account for that? Just <br />because at point A, there is no glint, but what about point B down here, because of topo or how <br />the road curves? <br />Mr. Healy said the analysis was done on the points that were selected. <br />Mr. Dagenhart said that you selected. <br />Mr. Healy said they were selected by Recurrent Energy to run the analysis on. <br />Mr. Corley thinks it is obvious we are a long way off on this glare study. He thinks the landscape <br />plan will hold a lot of the keys here, if we could ever see a plan that shows where we are planting <br />the trees and bushes. However, I am very interested and I do not mean to make it seem like I am <br />tearing your study apart here. I think you kind of got caught in the middle of somebody else's <br />mess and this is all we have to lean on now, which unfortunately, with some of the things that <br />have happened, in my opinion, those assumptions are far from valid today, based on what we <br />have gone through. <br />So, I am going to suggest, maybe contrary to what Mr. Webb has said. I would like to see a new <br />study with correct assumptions, with correct information, based on the new landscape plan that is <br />being submitted so this board can safely hang their hat on something technical. We do not know <br />what we are talking about; most of us have admitted that. We are relying on an expert and I am <br />prepared to accept the expert's report, provided that the information that went into that report <br />appears to actually reflect the site conditions. <br />The Chair said he agrees. <br />Mr. Dagenhart said looking here at your observation points in your report , revision 6, <br />observation point 16 through 9, have no relevance to the site. I mean, there is nothing that would <br />even; so those, to me , just appear to be arbitrary points. Yet, when you go back to Joyner Road <br />and Mount Pleasant Road , you only have two observation points. He said it is page 104 of our <br />packet. <br />Mr. Dagenhart said can you , in your professional opinion, explain to me how observation point <br />16 through 9 have any bearing on your glare study ? <br />28