Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />January 8, 2019 <br />27 <br /> <br />Mr. Dagenhart: Obviously, you have not seen what Mr. Benshoff presented us, correct? <br />Mr. Webb said no, other than on the visual screen here, not able to check dimensions, as far as <br />widths and buffers, to know what is within the easement, what is not within the easement. <br />Mr. Corley said one of the concerns specifically, with the glare study, were some of those <br />assumptions he thinks, that were made in that plan. He said with the question and answer you <br />heard tonight, does that or, let me restate this. Maybe with the supplementary plantings that they <br />are suggesting, does that give you a better comfort level that those assumptions are reasonable. <br />Mr. Webb said not particularly. He thinks the profiles that were discussed; shifting the ground <br />elevation up ten feet, to evaluate profile needs to be re-evaluated. He thinks there are a couple of <br />the locations on the sites that need to be looked at, where areas have been removed. The <br />residential subdivision we were just talking about, there are some pictures where you are <br />standing on the road and you can see the panels, due to elevations. He is not sure; he may have <br />missed it. But the new areas, the screens that are proposed, he does not think anybody mentioned <br />the height of those buffers. But, if you look at the plantings, that were shown tonight, he believes <br />along Mount Pleasant Road, they seem to be average plantings of not a fairly large height. <br />He said from a screening standpoint, he does not think that is going to potentially, block <br />additional glint and glare, at this stage. It may eventually grow into it, but he does not know that <br />the lifespan will to get to a height that will meet that. Because there are some elevation <br />challenges out there, too, because of the terrain and the size of the site. Those could be re- <br />evaluated, and those locations adjusted. We have made some comments about locations, where it <br />needs to be reviewed. <br />Mr. Corley said based on the actual conditions that exist today. <br />Mr. Webb: Correct. <br />The Chair said what would help that, evergreens? <br />Mr. Webb said depending on the spacing. There was a mention of plantings, but they did not <br />mention. He thinks they were 15 feet on center and staggered. He said Leyland Cypress are an <br />example of a fast-growing evergreen screen. They grow about a foot a year and within five or ten <br />years, you can have a 15-foot tall screen. They have their own issues with winds and snow. He is <br />not a landscape architect, so he is not the one to promote which plant to use. There are some <br />plants out there, and trees. It would depend on the period of when they were looking at glint and <br />glare, deciduous maybe acceptable in the summer. If it is an issue during the winter, obviously, <br />there is going to be very little blockage from twigs. <br />He does have some concerns against the neighborhood subdivision. Because of the elevation of <br />the road, as you look over, you can look over the houses and see the solar panels. But, here <br />again, with the solar study, they may have already looked at that; it may not be an issue. He will