PB Agenda Packet - Aug 6 2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

329 Whitney Watson: Sorry. Yeah. 330 331 Chris Johnston: I jumped in on yours, and I apologize for that. This is the first time I feel like we've seen this far 332 out, the 15 years and that sort of thing. If they, for whatever reason, fail to install a west campus 333 gym in 15 years, do they even have to come back and reapply for the conditional access or 334 something to be changed and updated to 20 years, or whatever the case may be, or is this kind of 335 a projection? How hard are these numbers? 336 337 Cy Stober: The state law has very hard number in vested rights for a non-phase development of 7 years at 338 present. 339 340 Chris Johnston: Okay. 341 342 Cy Stober: So that's our vesting period for a conditional zoning case. We're extending that through a 343 condition, so at the end of 15 years they are vested rights for that particular use and that particular 344 construction have expired and, yeah, they would need to go back through the zoning process 345 because the condition would have been exhausted. 346 347 Chris Johnston: Okay. Thank you. That's my only question. 348 349 Lamar Proctor: All right. Statler? 350 351 Statler Gilfillen: I'm reading through this. You or your department have made a number of comments in here. I 352 believe all of them are pretty much consistent that this is a positive direction. Technically, what 353 they're trying to do and approach this. Is there anything that I could've been missing that your 354 department has done that might be a conflict? 355 356 Cy Stober: I would defer to Lauren, because she's more intimately familiar with the application, but, no, I've 357 attended the development advisory committee meetings. They've been very responsive to the 358 comments from the county and DOT and responsive to the community comments as well, but 359 Lauren, I'll give you the floor. 360 361 Statler Gilfillen: What I'm seeing as an architect in the level of detail and what they presented, and what they've 362 gone through in the presentation tonight. They seem to be working very hard to conform and 363 make this work in positive ways. That's what I'm seeing in the paperwork and the presentation. 364 365 Cy Stober: Lauren, in your opinion, can you offer your view? 366 367 Lauren Honeycutt: That is correct. They did go through the development advisory committee and did receive 368 comments that required revisions. All revisions were made and complete before they moved 369 forward in the process. They're here tonight, and we're bringing it before the board with a staff 370 recommendation because of our assessment of completeness. I actually have a couple more 371 slides that could speak to that. I know we jumped into questions, but if we can kind of look 372 through those that speak to ways that this has complied with our requirements, including public 373 notification, which was sent out by staff, as well as signs posted, and public notification on our 374 web page, and then this is the staff analysis we're thinking about here. Staff did analyze that their 375 application was both in compliance with zoning atlas and unified development ordinance 376 amendments, the requirements from those, requirements for conditional districts nested within 377 that, and then also the requirements at large for schools. So, we looked at the comprehensive 378 plan and making sure that everything looks consistent. This one is being brought into compliance 379 with current zoning because the current use is only able to be through this non-residential 380 conditional district or another conditional district process, so that's why it's being brought forward 381 to bring that into compliance, and then they complied with providing environmental assessments, 382 which staff reviewed and determined that there was no significant impact, which is how we end up 383 12