My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
March-12-2019-Minutes
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
Planning
>
2019
>
March-12-2019-Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/31/2019 4:45:57 PM
Creation date
5/31/2019 3:28:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Minutes
Planning Minutes - Date
6/12/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
490
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />Earth maps, and the plan, there is a whole lot term visible here from the various observation <br />points from MPE's 1 through MPE's 6. So, if that took the plan into account and they were <br />supposed to be mitigated, why do we see a whole lot of visible still, that then correlates back to <br />yellows in your table? <br />Mr. Healy said I am sorry, which table are you looking at? <br />Mr. Wood said 2.2; I see a lot of visible's then from observation points across the spectrum of all <br />six MPE's, which would tell me line of sight, driving down the road, I can see them. <br />Mr. Healy said right. <br />Mr. Wood said so, ifI can see them, I am going to be experiencing the glint and glare, depending <br />on the time of day, based off your other charts down there. <br />Mr. Healy said so, chart 2.3 is a combination of the first two charts, so this shows where you <br />would be visible and where you would have had the glint and glare. <br />Mr. Wood said some of these that are highlighted in yellow, some of them are not highlighted <br />even though they say yellow, does that take into account the illustrations that were taken in or the <br />actually topography? Why the difference then? <br />Mr. Healy said that just takes into account using the ArcGIS tool that we applied. <br />Mr. Wood said right. But, it took real assumptions and illustrations, which, for lack of a better <br />word, are assumptions? <br />Mr. Healy said right, we took some assumptions in. Then we asked, which is not reflected in the <br />table, we asked Recurrent Energy to go to the field and field verify, to see if they could actually <br />see the areas, and that was what was provided as a supplement to the report. <br />Mr. Wood said so again, based off of both of these tools together, when you ran your filters, I am <br />seeing a lot of still visibly yellow, they are still visible from line of sight. So, we've still got <br />some work to do, I think is what most of us are pointing out, even based off of the assumptions. <br />Mr. Healy said right, which this did not take into account any ofthe new mitigation plans that <br />were submitted in February. <br />Mr. Wood said did not take those into account? <br />Mr. Healy said did not, no . <br />Mr. Wood said thank you. <br />31
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.