Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />Ms. Grimsley said can we open that up for discussion or do you need a second first? <br />The Chair said no, we can discuss it? <br />Ms. Grimsley would like to hear the Staffs opinion on that; if they are okay with that. <br />Mr. Dagenhart said I think Susie addressed that earlier, that the next few weeks is going to be <br />cumbersome for Staff to get to the point for an April meeting. <br />Ms. Morris said that is correct. You know, these documents are floating in one at a time, two at a <br />time. I worked with Mr. Jansen to try to get this to a point where you all could deal with some of <br />the things that could come off of the table, knowing that the glare study and the landscape study - <br />or the landscape plan were probably going to be remaining outstanding issues. The conditions <br />that were proposed, based on this meeting tonight, are not even accurate at this point, because <br />you all have proposed additional conditions as part of this, an either the applicant addresses those <br />before they come back or; we had a discussion about you wanting to see the glare study back and <br />you said you did. <br />If you want to see this information back, if we get it in three weeks, the engineer will not have an <br />opportunity to review it and us to get you some type of memo or staff report together to give you <br />the comments that you requested at the last meeting. She said time wise, if they submitted <br />something to us, again, today is the deadline for a new case to come in, and that is just to start the <br />review of that case. That does not mean that they make it to you in 30 days. Submitting things to <br />us the day before the meeting is not appropriate. At a staff level, we have bent over backwards to <br />try to accommodate the applicant and make this project move forward. But, again, like we talked <br />about at the last meeting, at some point, it has to be static, the comments need to be addressed, <br />and you all need to have the information that you need to be able to make the best decision that <br />you can. <br />Mr. Gittens said, I will just say that the problematic conditions or the conditions at issue are <br />those dealing with glare and those dealing with the landscape plan. They still require those two <br />items to be submitted in a form that the County approves. So, those conditions do not need to <br />change, they do not need to be added to. Behind those conditions are corrections and instructions <br />that have been made loud and clear to both the applicant and the County, as to what needs to be <br />included in those documents. Your question as to how those conditions are going to be satisfied <br />and those conditions are what were submitted by the County, so I am not sure I understand why <br />those conditions would need to be revised in any way, from what was submitted earlier. <br />If we are back in April and can show more significant progress, progress that builds on what we <br />have done in February, before that with the Board tour of the site and at this hearing. We will be <br />much further along and our request is that we do come back to deal with at least some of the <br />improvements that will hopefully, knock some of the items off of the list and result in <br />potentially, two more board hearings, of a much shorter duration each, where we can deal with <br />58