6-4-25 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8.6.25 329 330 Whitney Watson: Sorry. Yeah. 331 332 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 333 out, the 15 years and that sort of thing. If they,for whatever reason,fail to install a west campus 334 gym in 15 years,do they even have to come back and reapply for the conditional access or 335 something to be changed and updated to 20 years,or whatever the case may be, or is this kind of 336 a projection? How hard are these numbers? 337 338 Cy Stober: The state law has very hard number in vested rights for a non-phase development of 7 years at 339 present. 340 341 Chris Johnston: Okay. 342 343 Cy Stober: So that's our vesting period for a conditional zoning case. We're extending that through a 344 condition, so at the end of 15 years they are vested rights for that particular use and that particular 345 construction have expired and, yeah, they would need to go back through the zoning process 346 because the condition would have been exhausted. 347 348 Chris Johnston: Okay. Thank you. That's my only question. 349 350 Lamar Proctor: All right. Statler? 351 352 Statler Gilfillen: I'm reading through this. You or your department have made a number of comments in here. 1 353 believe all of them are pretty much consistent that this is a positive direction. Technically,what 354 they're trying to do and approach this. Is there anything that I could've been missing that your 355 department has done that might be a conflict? 356 357 Cy Stober: I would defer to Lauren, because she's more intimately familiar with the application, but, no, I've 358 attended the development advisory committee meetings. They've been very responsive to the 359 comments from the county and DOT and responsive to the community comments as well, but 360 Lauren, I'll give you the floor. 361 362 Statler Gilfillen: What I'm seeing as an architect in the level of detail and what they presented, and what they've 363 gone through in the presentation tonight. They seem to be working very hard to conform and 364 make this work in positive ways. That's what I'm seeing in the paperwork and the presentation. 365 366 Cy Stober: Lauren, in your opinion,can you offer your view? 367 368 Lauren Honeycutt: That is correct. They did go through the development advisory committee and did receive 369 comments that required revisions. All revisions were made and complete before they moved 370 forward in the process. They're here tonight,and we're bringing it before the board with a staff 371 recommendation because of our assessment of completeness. I actually have a couple more 372 slides that could speak to that. I know we jumped into questions, but if we can kind of look 373 through those that speak to ways that this has complied with our requirements, including public 374 notification,which was sent out by staff, as well as signs posted, and public notification on our 375 web page, and then this is the staff analysis we're thinking about here. Staff did analyze that their 376 application was both in compliance with zoning atlas and unified development ordinance 377 amendments,the requirements from those, requirements for conditional districts nested within 378 that, and then also the requirements at large for schools. So,we looked at the comprehensive 379 plan and making sure that everything looks consistent. This one is being brought into compliance 380 with current zoning because the current use is only able to be through this non-residential 381 conditional district or another conditional district process, so that's why it's being brought forward 382 to bring that into compliance, and then they complied with providing environmental assessments, 383 which staff reviewed and determined that there was no significant impact,which is how we end up