1

PLANNING COMMISSION Be it remembered that the Oxford Planning Commission did meet in special session on Monday, November 10, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., in the City Hall Court Room with the following members present: Michael Harmon Darryail Whittington Duncan Gray

Walt Bishop Hayden Alexander Mark Huelse John Bradley

Others Present:

Paul Watkins, City Attorney Andrea Correll, City Planner Reanna Mayoral, Assistant City Engineer Katrina Hourin, Assistant City Planner

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Harmon. 2. Approval of the Agenda. Chairman Harmon asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Commissioner Huelse made a motion to move Case #1908 from the regular agenda to the consent agenda, commenting that it is a plat approval and meets City standards. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittington; all members of the Commission voting aye, the motion carried. Commission Huelse commented on Case #1881 from the recessed meeting of October 30th died for lack of action for Park West, a development on Hwy 6 having concerns about MDOT access etc. Commission Huelse moved to reconsider Case #1881 at the end of the October 30th agenda, item #11A. Assistant City Planner, Katrina Hourin requested on behalf of the applicant that Case #1907, Item 22, a preliminary plat approval for The Heights, Phase II be tabled. Commissioner Bradley requested Case #1909, is moved from item 25(a-f) to item 5A on the agenda. Chairman Harmon requested a motion for approval of the agenda. Commissioner Bradley made a motion and Commission Whittington seconded the motion. All present voting aye, the agenda was approved. 3. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 20, 2014. Calling for changes and hearing none, Chairman Harmon called for a motion for the approval of the minutes of the last meeting. Commissioner Bradley made the motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Whittington seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the minutes were approved.

2

3A. Election of a Vice Chairman Commission Whittington requested that a Vice-Chairman be elected to the Commission where none had been selected. He made a motion to elect Commissioner Huelse as Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Bishop seconded the motion. All present voted unanimously to approve Commission Huelse as Vice-Chairman. 4. The Planning and Building Officials’ Reports. City Planner, Andrea Correll indicated that the Building Official, Randy Barber was not present at the meeting however the building report had been submitted with the packages. She continued on to the Planner’s Report to discuss procedure to limit agenda items to a maximum of 15 items for each meeting and to limit the meeting to 8:00PM. She added that a standing second meeting time could be scheduled if necessary. The Commissioners resolved to consider a second meeting. Without a Building Official report, Chairman Harmon made a motion to accept the Planning Report; Commissioner Duncan Gray seconded the motion. All present voting aye; the Planning report was approved. Continued Agenda Items from October 30, 2014 5. Public hearing for Case #1890 to amend the Land Use Map for property brought into the City Limits. (Planning Commission) Staff analysis - The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an explanation of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use map. This is a very important activity because zonings and rezoning’s are required to be compatible with this map.

I would like to bring to your attention the process. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the changes I am recommending to the Future Land Use Map. These changes include property that has become part of the City recently by annexation or inclusion. I would appreciate a motion recommending the proposed future Land Use Map to the Board of Alderman.

A new Land Use Category is identified on the Map as Medical. The area identified is the +/- 150-acre tract of land owned by Baptist and being developed as the new hospital campus. Eighty acres of land was part of the recent inclusion bringing it into the City. The remaining seventy acres is made up of land already in the City compiled by Baptist as part of the hospital campus. After the adoption of the Land Use Map, the next step is consideration of rezoning of these properties to the new Medical Zoning District case #1891.

3

The tract of land annexed at the current termination of CR 300 which proposed for medium density residential Case #1895 and the final piece of land is proposed for high density residential Case #1894.

All of these proposed changes are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and consistent with the approved development pattern in the area. Please find attached the appropriate section of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for your review.

City Planner, Andrea Correll discussed the proposed Land Use Map identifying the land uses for the three newly annexed properties. Commissioner Bishop commented on concerns of density of the proposed zoning and the possible impact to this area. He expressed additional concerns regarding the absence of grocery stores. Ms. Correll continued discussing the changes to the map and the need to bring the new hospital property to be zoned and brought into the City correctly. There were general questions related to the order and process by which the land use map and zoning cases were being heard. Chairman Harmon asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. Michael Bridge appeared before the Commission seeking clarification of inconsistencies between agenda items and map labels, further stating that Item #5 of the agenda was incorrectly labeled. Chairman Harmon once again called for questions from the audience. Hearing none, called for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Bradley asked if the adoption of the plan would affect any item on the agenda. Ms. Correll further explained that accepting the plan would allow the next step to occur; which would be to allow the zoning of the property being brought into the city. Chairman Harmon asked for a motion. Commissioner Bradley made the motion to approve the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Huelse seconded the motion. All present voting aye. The motion carried and the plan was adopted. COMMISSIONER HUELSE WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE HEARING FOR CASE #1909 (A – F) 5A. Public hearing for Case #1909 - Request to zone property in the Grand Oaks, Planned Unit Development which was omitted during annexation of the properties by the City in 2007:

4

a. Windham property containing a +/-2.53 acre tract fronting on Majestic Oaks Drive known as lot 120 in Grand Oaks (property in PUD I and PUD II) to be zoned (CE) Country Estate zoning district. The portion of this tract that lies in PUD I, which was previously zoned (A) Agricultural, is proposed to be rezoned (CE) to correspond to the rest of the tract. The proposed action will also alter the Grand Oaks PUD’s to reflect the same changes. To be known PUD as Parcel 29 in the Grand Oaks PUD II

b. Roth property containing a +/- 1.438 acre tract fronting on Majestic Oaks Drive known as lot 141 in Grand Oaks (property in PUD I and PUD II) to be zoned (CE) Country Estate. The portion of this tract that lies in PUD I, which was previously zoned (A) Agricultural is proposed to be rezoned (CE) County Estate to correspond with the rest of the tract. This proposed action will also alter the Grand Oaks PUDs to reflect the same changes. To be known as Parcel 28A in the Grand Oaks, PUD II

c. Roth property containing a +/- 3.17 acre tract known as 28B to from on Fazio Drive to be zoned (R1A) in Grand Oaks, PUD II

d. Property containing +/- 286.40 acres located in Grand Oaks, Phase II to be zoned (R1A) Single Family Residential including the platted subdivision known as the Grove and further described as Parcels

e. Property containing +/- 95.7 acres located in Grand Oaks, Phase II to be zoned (A) Agricultural including the Club Site, Recreation Areas, the Gold Course and OU School.

f. Property containing +/- 204.7 acres located in Grand Oaks, Phase II to be zoned (RC) Multi-Family and further described as Parcels; 1, 2, 4 ,7A, 7B,7C, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10A, 10B, 10C, 14, 19A, 20A, 20B, 21, 23B, 23C, 27 in the PUD II Master Plan

Due to an error in zoning when Grand Oaks, PUD II was brought into the city, Ms. Correll explained the need to correct some 290 acres into smaller portions proposed in Case #1909. Ms. Correll described the (a) Windham property and explained the need for zoning of (CE) Country Estate. City attorney, Paul Watkins, for further clarification explained the differences between the two phases of the Grand Oaks, PUD. Grand Oaks, PUD-Phase I was already in the city and zoned (A) Agricultural at the time it received its PUD overlay designation. However, Grand Oaks, PUD, Phase II was in the county when planning began and the request for sewer and water was granted by the city. This is where the mistake is believed to have initiated and one in which the city is seeking to rectify at this time. All

5

PUD’s are required to have an underlying zoning that the PUD sets on top of, however this was not the case for PUD, II. Fortunately, there hasn't been a lot of development at this time. The density chart lays out the zoning of PUD, II but with no underlying zoning laying out all the rules and regulations for the development, it becomes problematic. There needs to be underlying zoning that works with the master plan original submitted. A complication in this case is that the zoning ordinance conflicts with the requirements of the PUD ordinance. The underlying zone will roughly correspond with the densities that are reflected in the PUD plan. Concluding that some of the items included in the case before the Commission are in PUD I and the result of surveying errors. Discussion continued between Mr. Watkins and the Commission regarding this issue and possible conflicts in other PUD’s in the City. Ms. Correll continued explaining the errors and corrections for the Grand Oaks, PUD I and II. She further stated that there was an increase in the acreage because the lakes and golf course were never included in the data sheet, but should have been included as part of the PUD. Chairman Harmon asked for questions from the Commission and the audience. Mr. Michael Bianco appeared before the Commission stating that he was concerned about this case because his property backs up to area in PUD II. With more specific concerns regarding the type of zoning that would be designated adjacent to his property and inquired as to whether there was a choice of zoning for that area. Mr. Watkins explained that the zoning of the property in PUD II have been the same as when it was accepted in 2007 and amended again in 2013. The densities have already been established. Mr. Michael Bridge made a brief comment on Grand Oaks, PUD I and II and their underlying zoning and his belief that they were not brought into the city properly contending that the request before the Commission is premature. Commissioner Bradley interrupted Mr. Bridge to say when the case was moved up on the agenda, it was done so pro forma to correct an earlier error. He then made the motion to table Case #1909(a-f) to have more time to gather additional information. Chairman Harmon asked for a second. Larry Britt, one of three of the developers of PUD II, requested to speak before the Commission. To clarify a number of points made by Mr. Bridge, Mr. Britt stated that he had on file with the planning department the right to represent the all of the respective land owners for the property being discussed tonight. Mr. Britt and his partners purchased the entire property in 2012. Having finished three phases they have done everything that the city has asked them to do. He believes the City is trying to correct the mistake and they want it corrected. Further stating that they have been operating under assumption that everything had been approved and legal and appropriate. He stated that

6

they are trying to correct a mistake that existed prior to their purchase of the property. Mr. Britt then asked that his attorney, David O’Donnell to speak on his behalf. Mr. O’Donnell stated briefly that PUD I and II were approved by the City Board of Aldermen years ago. PUD II was approved as a condition for the developers receiving sewer and water for the property. PUD II had been approved in revised form over and over again over the years and is clearly of record predating the annexation. The matter of densities reflected in the PUD; the density charts had been passed down to developers and are vested rights and a matter of property record. The developers took that property subject to those conditions. The zoning being proposed is consistent with those original densities, concluding that the PUD’s have been approved and is clearly of record. Commissioner Bradley asked if the recommended zoning had been approved and supported by Mr. Britt. Mr. Britt replied that is was. Discussion continued regarding the proposed zoning and the existing density charts. Mr. Bridge ask for a point of order stating that he was a property owner of Grand Oaks representing himself and that he was professional planner offering a suggestion to the Commission, based on his experience. The Commission asked Mr. Watkins for comment. He contended that Mr. O’Donnell was right about the PUD was clearly approved. It may not have been done correctly, but the purposed of the request was to address the error. It would be completely unrealistic to act as though it didn't exist and start from scratch. With that, Chairman Harmon made a recommendation that the case be table to the November 20, 2014 meeting. Commission Bradley seconded the motion. All those present voting aye. Case #1909 (a-f) was tabled to the November 20, 2016 meeting. 6. Public hearing for Case #1894 to zone property that was recently annexed into the city containing +/- 5.209 acre tract (PPIN 7983) to (RC) Multi-Family. Planner’s Comments: The property is located along two new proposed roads CR 300/ Oxford Extension and the north south connector road from 300 to the new hospital. The City is required to zone the property now it is annexed. The change in land use is high-density residential, which is supported and documented as being a component of smart growth. This land-use change is consistent with the adjacent zoned land recently annexed into the City as part of the Callicutt Farms development. The change and need is directly related to the development of the new Baptist Hospital and the associated new roads and need for supporting higher density residential. The Hospital property is slated to develop as a medical district. There is an immediate need for higher density residential in close proximity to the new hospital. The concept of smart growth and having diverse residential choices near a major employment center is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City’s major transportation plan indicates

7

an east-west collector roadway through the property designated to connect Old Taylor Road with South Lamar Boulevard. Also, as with the approval of Baptist Hospital, there will be a north-south connector road that ties the Hospital Campus to this property and the Callicutt Farms Community. See the Thoroughfare Map Plan from the adopted Comprehensive Plan documenting the expansion of 300 across the Callicutt property supporting change in need. Zoning the property to (RC) multi-family residential is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as existing and proposed development patterns, land use and zoning in the area. Recommendation: Zone the requested property (RC) Multi-Family Residential Commission Bradley asked how close this zoning would be to any single family residences. Ms. Correll stated that the homes existing located adjacent to the subject property were single family, but the zoning Multi Family and had been for a long time. Other adjacent properties were located in the County. Discussion continued regarding the surrounding property and proposed zoning. Chairman Harmon asked for comments from the Commission and the audience. Commissioner Bradley made a motion to approved the proposed zoning. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion. All present voting aye. The motion carried and Case #1894 was approved. 7. Public hearing for Case #1895 to zone property recently annexed into the City containing +/- 43.91 acre tract (PPIN 16804 and 7983) to (RB) Two-Unit Residential near CR 300. Planner’s Comments: The property is located along existing and CR 300/ Oxford Extension. The City is required to zone the property now it is annexed. The best use of the property is for two-family dwelling acting as a transitional zoning between single family and multi-family zoning. The change in land use is to medium density residential, which is supported and documented as being a component of smart growth. This land-use change is consistent with the adjacent zoned land recently annexed into the City as part of the Callicutt Farms development and existing zoned land on the north side of 300 to Old Taylor Road. The change and need is directly related to the development of the new Baptist Hospital and the associated new roads and need for supporting higher density residential. The Hospital property is slated to develop as a medical district. There is an immediate need for medium density residential in close proximity to the new hospital. The concept of smart growth and having diverse residential choices near a major employment center is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City’s major transportation plan indicates an east-west collector roadway through the property designated to connect Old Taylor Road with South Lamar Boulevard. See the Thoroughfare Map Plan from the adopted

8

Comprehensive Plan documenting the expansion of 300 across the Callicutt property supporting change in need. Zoning the property to (RB) Two-Unit Residential is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as existing and proposed development patterns, land use and zoning in the area. Recommendation: Zone the requested property (RB) Two-Unit Residential Chairman Harmon asked for questions. Hearing none, asked for questions or comments from the audience. Chairman Harmon then made the motion to recommend approval of to zone for the requested property. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. All present voted in favor of the request for recommendation to zone property in Case #1895. 8. Public hearing for Case #1896 to amend Section 117 Definitions: a. (Amend) Section 117.59 Dwelling, multi-unit b. (Amend) Section 117.60 Dwelling, two-unit c. (Add) 117.74 a. Floor area ratio d. (Add) Section 117.105a. Lot Coverage e. (Add) Section 117. 123b. Natural disaster The purpose of revising the definitions for dwelling, multi-unit and two-unit is to clean up the definitions and more concisely state the number of bedrooms. The committee made the suggestion in the meeting to refine the definition of multi-unit and two-unit dwellings in their meeting as well as adding lot coverage. Floor area ratio is listed in the design standard of the Neighborhood Conservation District but not defined, so I am proposing the definition below be added for clarification. Finally, due to the number of natural disasters that occur in Mississippi, I wanted to define natural disaster so the structures destroyed during a natural disaster could be replaced. On September 22, 2014, the Ordinance Review Committee made up of the Mayor, Alderman Antonow, Alderman Bailey, Planning Commissioner Whittaker, City Attorney Paul Watkins, along with planning staff met and recommended unanimously the changes being proposed be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Sec. 117. Definitions. 117.59 Dwelling, multi-unit: A dwelling designed to contain three or more dwelling units for occupancy independent of each other as separate housekeeping units. When all occupants of a dwelling unit are not related to each other by blood, adoption, marriage, or

9

foster care, the number of occupants in a unit shall not exceed a number which is equal to the number of bathrooms in that dwelling unit multiplied by two but in no event more than five such occupants. A bathroom is a room in the unit which contains both complete toilet and bathing facilities. In no case will there be more than four bedroom units except in the NC Overlay district which is more stringent and specific to that district. 117.60 Dwelling, two-unit: A dwelling designed to contain two dwelling units for occupancy independent of each other as separate housekeeping units. When all occupants of a dwelling unit are not related to each other by blood, adoption, marriage, or foster care, the number of occupants in a unit shall not exceed the number which is equal to the number of bathrooms in that dwelling unit multiplied by two but in no event more than for such occupants. A bathroom is a room in the unit which contains both complete toilet and bathing facilities. In no case will there be more than three bedroom units except in the NC Overlay district which is more stringent and specific to that district. 117.74a - Floor Area ratio (FAR) expresses the relationship between the amount of useable floor area permitted in a building (or buildings) and the area of the lot on which the building stands. It is obtained by dividing the gross floor area of a building by the total area of the lot 117.105a Lot coverage: Lot coverage shall include building footprint, driveways, parking pads, and sidewalks. 17.123b-Natural Disaster-A natural occurrence such as a earthquake, flood, fire, hurricane or tornado that may be a weather event which causes great damage to property. Commission Whittington suggested that ‘straight line winds’ be added to the language addressing Natural Disasters. Asking for questions for comments from the audience, Chairman Harmon asked for a motion. Commissioner Whittington made a motion to approve the amendments to the definition section of the Land Development Code with the addition of straight line winds. Commissioner Bishop seconded the motion. All present voting aye. Case #1896 was approved. 9. Public hearing for Case #1897 to amend Parking Requirements in Section 204: Off Street automobile parking and storage; 29. Multi-Unit dwellings and two-unit residential.

10

The purpose of this amendment is to require guest parking spaces for two-unit and multi-unit development. On September 22, 2014, the Ordinance Review Committee made up of the Mayor, Alderman Antonow, Alderman Bailey, Planning Commissioner Whittaker, City Attorney Paul Watkins, along with planning staff met and recommended unanimously the changes being proposed be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Please find the proposed text amendment below: Sec. 204. Off-street automobile parking and storage. 19. Multi-unit dwellings and two-unit dwellings: A minimum of one parking space per each one bedroom unit and two spaces per each two bedroom or more bedroom unit. Where bedrooms are rented individually one parking space per bedroom is required. An additional parking space is required for every two units for visitors. Chairman Harmon asked for questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Bishop asked if the additional spaces should be pervious. Ms. Correll commented that lot coverage controls how much development occurs. Chairman Harmon asked for question or comments from the audience. Hearing none entertained a motion for 1897. Commission Whittington made a motion to accept. Commissioner Alexander seconded the motion. All present voting aye. Case #1897 was approved. 10. Public hearing for Case #1898 to add Section 144. Conservation Development and add the special exception for conservation development before the Planning Commission to Section 130 C-E Country Estate Residential 130.02 Uses permitted by special exceptions 8., Section 131. R-E Residential Estate Residential District 131.02 Uses permitted by special exceptions 6, Section 132 R-A Single-Family Residential district Section 132.02 Uses permitted by special exceptions 7 and Section 133. R-1a Section 133.02 Uses permitted by special exceptions 8. (Tabled) 11. Public hearing for Case #1899 to amend the Section 121.03 3. Nonconforming use and Section 122.02 Nonconforming structures to enable rebuilding after a natural disaster. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to enable rebuilding after a natural disaster. Since our meeting in the basement when the tornado siren kept going off, I have wanted to rewrite this section to enable rebuilding after a natural disaster. A good example of

11

why this amendment is needed would be that many structures on our beloved courthouse square are non-conforming. As the administrator of the Development Ordinance, I do not want to disallow anyone the right to rebuild after a natural disaster. On September 22, 2014, the Ordinance Review Committee made up of the Mayor, Alderman Antonow, Alderman Bailey, Planning Commissioner Whittaker, City Attorney Paul Watkins, along with planning staff met and recommended unanimously the changes being proposed be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Also included is the proposed definition of natural disaster for your convenience and to further clarify this amendment. Please find the proposed text below: Section 117 Definitions Proposed - Natural Disaster-A natural occurrence such as a earthquake, flood, fire, hurricane or tornado that may be a weather event which causes great damage to property. Commissioner Gray suggested that the definition be amended to include ‘straight line winds’ as part of the definition of a natural disaster. Chairman Harmon asked for questions, comments or additions to the case from the Commission; likewise for the audience. Hearing none, Chairman Harmon made a motion to approve the amendment. Commission Bradley seconded the motion. All present voting aye. Case #1899 was approved. 11A. – Reconsideration of Case #1881 Special Exception to allow condominium for ‘Park West’ a mixed-use development located on Highway 6 West northwest of the intersection with Thacker Loop in the portion zoned (RB) Two-Unit Residential zoned district. Planner’s Comments: The subject property is located on the north side of Highway 6 West and measures approximately 4.772 acres in total; the property is divided into two zoning classifications. The parcel adjacent to Hwy. 6 is approximately 1.699-acre parcel and is zoned (GB) General Business. The remainder; zoned (RB) Two-Unit Residential is located to the rear or north and measures approximately 3.073-acres. The applicant is seeking a special exception to allow the construction of an 18-unit residential condominium development. Section 134.02(7) of Oxford’s Land Development Code permits three or more condominiums by special exception. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request for the special exception to allow residential condominiums in an (RB) Two-Unit Residential zoned district with the following finding and condition:

12

1. Granting of the special exception will not adversely affect he public interest. 2. If a building permit is not issued 18 months from date of approval the special exception will expire. Jeff Williams, of Williams Engineering appeared on behalf of the applicant and offered to answer any questions; summarizing briefly the issues of the last meeting were the 1) location of the approved MDOT access of the Hwy. 6 and 2) the need for secondary access. Mr. Williams commented that the applicants had been in contact with the adjacent land owners to gain a secondary access to allow the development to move forward. In addition, Mr. William's had contacted MDOT regarding the location of the access point and the Commissions concern regarding its proximity to the North Thacker Extension intersection. Mr. Williams was informed by MDOT that the location approved for a permit to allow access to Hwy.6 and is the only location that another permit could be issued due to the existing locations of Thacker Extension and CR 165 to the west; adding that it could not be moved in either direction and meets all MDOT requirements. He concluded that the negotiations for access to Thacker Extension are being pursued. Discussion continued regarding the number of access points already existing in close proximity to the development. Commissioner Bradley voiced his concern with the Commission granting a special exception which will increase the amount of traffic onto an already busy segment of Hwy. 6. Andy Fornea, developer for Park West appeared before the Commission to address the Commission’s concerns and reported that progress had been made with the owner of the property between his development and North Thacker Loop. He was hopeful that an agreement for access would be reached. Chairman Harmon called for additional questions or comments from the Commission and the audience. Hearing none, called for a motion in Case #1881. Commissioner Huelse made a motion adding another condition; ‘contingent on obtaining the access to North Thacker Loop’. Commissioner Bishop seconded the motion. All present voting aye. Case #1881 was approved. 11B - Public hearing for Case #1882 - Site Plan Approval for ‘Park West’ a mixed-use development located on Highway 6 West northwest of the intersection with Thacker Loop in a (GB) General Business zoned district and a (RB) Two-Unit Residential zoned district. Planner’s Comments: The subject property is located on the north side of Highway 6 West and measures approximately 4.772 acres in total; the property is divided into two

13

zoning classifications. The parcel adjacent to Hwy. 6 is approximately a 1.699 acre parcel and is zoned (GB) General Business. The remainder; zoned (RB) Two-Unit Residential is located to the rear or north and measures approximately 3.073 acres. A site plan was approved in 9/2012 for Stout’s Sports Academy. The property was cleared and leveled to construct a commercial sports facility; however the project was never completed. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to construct a commercial condominium complex comprised of two, 2-story professional office buildings for an approximate total of 23,500 square feet on the portion of the property zoned (GB) General Business and a 18-unit residential condominium complex on the property zoned (RC) Two-Unit Residential. The applicant is employing a LID (Low Impact Development) technique by using bioswales in the large cul-de-sac in the rear of the property and along the northwest border of the site; reducing the impact on the City’s underground storm system. Mr. Williams recalled briefly the Commission’s request from the previous meeting that the owner of the property gain an addition point of access by easement thru an adjacent property to the east. This easement would allow the residents of the proposed development access to the North Thacker Extension signal providing a safe way to cross Hwy. 6 for those traveling east. The semi-circular drive serves as a traffic calming measure between the residential and commercial uses. The applicants met with the site plan review committee on August 27th and have made all necessary revisions. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for ‘Park West’- a mixed use condominium complex with the following conditions:

1. All storm water calculations for the project shall be approved by the City’s engineers prior to the issuance of any permits.

2. A copy of the covenants as stamped and recorded in the Chancery Clerk’s office to be submitted to the planning department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of

Occupancy. 3. Site plan filed with the chancery clerk to contain language regarding condominium complex’s as defined by the City of Oxford’s Land Development Code and that the homeowners association maintain all common areas indicted on the recorded plan. 4. The covenants shall include language that the ‘Non-parking’ areas will be the owner’s responsibility to enforce. 5. Installation of the buffer along the west side of the property be required to be installed within 60 days of approval or the sale of the property whichever comes first. 6. Access to North Oxford Loop.

14

Chairman Harmon made a motion to approved Case #1882 with the four conditions and the two additional conditions. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. All present voted aye. Case #1882 was approved. Due to the time (7:00PM) Chairman Harmon called for a five minute recess. Consent Agenda 12. Public hearing for Case #1900 – Site Plan Approval for ‘Waterstone’ a 35-unit residential condominium development in Grand Oaks, PUD Phase I for property located in Grand Oaks, Phase I, (PUD) Planned Unit Development Overlay district. (Tabled) 13. Public hearing for Case #1901 – Plat amendment approval for Murphy USA Fueling Station for property located at 2528 Jackson Avenue West in a (GB) General Business zoned district.

Planner’s Comments: The subject property is located on the south side of Jackson Avenue West on the Wal-Mart property and measures approximately .79 acres. Developed as part of the Wal-Mart supercenter in 2000, the owners of the property are proposing to amend the plat to create an additional parcel. The proposed parcel is currently a portion of the Wal-Mart parking lot located at the northern border of the site and east of the secondary point of ingress and egress. The applicant is seeking to amend the plat to allow for the construction of a fueling station by Murphy Oil. The amended plat will divide the existing parcel into two parcels; indicated as 1A and 1B. An access easement is illustrated on the attached plat providing Murphy USA to access the site from both entryways on Jackson Avenue West. The applicant met with the site plan review committee on April 2, 2014 and October 22, 2014 and has made all necessary revisions for compliance with city regulations. Recommendation: Approve the plat amendment to include the addition of Parcel 1B. 13A. Public hearing for Case #1908 – Plat Amendment to ‘Southwood’ residential subdivision located on Bickerstaff Road in (RA) Single Family Residential zoned district. Chairman Harmon called for questions or comments from the Commission and the audience regarding cases #1901 and 1908 on the content agenda. Hearing none, made a motion to approved the content agenda. Commissioner Whittington seconded the motion. All present voting aye. Cases #1901 and #1908 were approved.

15

Board of Adjustment 14. Public hearing for Case #1902 - Special exception to permit residential condominiums in a (RB) Two-Unit Residential zoned district for property located at 2743 South Lamar in a (RB) Two-Unit Residential zoned district

Planners Comments: The subject property measures approximately 14.95 acres and is located on east side of South Lamar Boulevard between Office Park Drive to the south and Horne Road to the north. Site plan was approved in 7/2014 for the 75-unit, 280-bed residential development. The project is currently under construction.

The applicant is seeking a special exception to permit condominiums. The application was submitted and processed prior to the final adoption of an ordinance which now excludes condominiums in (RB) districts.

Letters of support from the Nottinghill Homeowners Association and Andy Callicutt; owner of the development to the west of the subject property were submitted.

Recommendation: approve the special exception permitting condominiums in a (RB) Two-Unit Residential district with the following finding:

1. Granting the special exception will not adversely affect the public interest.

George Haymans appeared on behalf of the applicant briefly discussing the possible changes to the ordinances that may eliminate the ability to allow condominiums in an (RB) Two-Unit Residential district. Due to this possible change, his client decided to seek approval for a special exception to permit condominiums allowing the owner the option to convert rental property to owner occupied condominiums units.

Chairman Harmon called for questions from the Commission.

Commission Bradley offered to make a motion to approve the special exception with the condition that a third lane be installed the full length of the development. Discussion continued regarding the special exception, traffic along South Lamar and the possible future conflicts in this area of Oxford.

Chairman Harmon called for additional comments or questions from the Commission and the audience. Hearing none, Chairman Harmon asked for a motion for Case #1902. Commissioner Alexander made a motion to approve the case. Commission Huelse seconded the motion.

All present voting aye. Case #1902 was approved.

15. Public hearing for Case #1903- Special Exception to permit residential use in a (GB) General Business zoned district for property located at 805 College Hill Road in a (GB) General Business and (RC) Multi-Unit Residential zoned district (Tabled)

16

16. Public hearing for Case #1904 – Variance to the stormwater management ordinance for property located at 805 College Hill Road in a (GB) General Business and (RC) Multi-Unit Residential zoned district (Tabled)

17. Public hearing for Case #1905 – Eight-foot side (north) yard setback variance for property located on 2901 South Lamar Boulevard in a (RB) Two-Unit Residential zoned district.

Planner’s Comments: The subject property is an unusual shaped lot measuring approximately 3.11 acres and is located on the east side of South Lamar just south of Azalea Drive and Office Park Drive. The topography is fairly level at the street consistently decreasing in elevation to the rear of the property. The property is developed with eighteen four bedroom units.

The applicant is requesting a variance for four units because it was recently found that the screened in porches are over the setback line. The porches are shown on the plan attached and sometime in the development process an oversight occurred either at plan review or in the field during construction. The special conditions and circumstances and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

A variance request may be granted under the terms of the Ordinance after the applicant can demonstrate the following:

a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure, or building involved and which are not applicable in to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;

b. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance;

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; and

d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.

Recommendation: There are special conditions and circumstances that exist that are peculiar to the land due to an oversight by staff a hardship has occurred for Bryant Development. The special conditions were no fault of the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the request.

17

Andrea Correll presented the case to the Commission. Sid Brian, developer of the project appeared before the Commission to discuss in detail, the variance and commented on the willingness of the neighbor to work with the applicant in supporting the variance request. Commissioner Gray made a motion to approve the variance. Chairman Harmon called for questions or comments from the Commission or the audience. Hearing none, Chairman Harmon called for a motion for Case #1905. Commissioner Bradley motioned to approve, Commissioner Bishop seconded the motion.

All present voting aye. Case #1905 was approved.

Planning Commission

18. Public hearing for Case #1879 – Site plan approval for ‘Galleria II’ shopping center located at 2619 Jackson Avenue West for property in a (GB) General Business zoned district

Planner’s Comments: The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot located on the north side of West Jackson Avenue and measures approximately 20.1 acres. Currently existing on the site is Ewing Trailer Park. Topography is fairly level throughout and the Goose Creek is the northeast boundary of the subject property, consequently a portion of the site in the flood plain.

The applicant is seeking to construct a retail shopping development consisting of approximately 15 buildings and a total of 208,770 square feet of building space. There are four points of ingress and egress proposed to the site two from Jackson Avenue, a third from Home Depot Drive and the fourth located on West Oxford Loop.

Public Works has received a Traffic Impact Study prepared by licensed Engineer using counts taken on September 3 and September 4, 2014 and using other existing traffic data. Public Works has requested additional follow-up data from the Engineer and has submitted the report for review to both the Mississippi Department of Transportation and a Traffic Engineering Consultant on behalf of the City. At the time of this report, Public Works has no comment on the Traffic Impact Study or any impact of traffic from this development on Jackson Avenue or surrounding roads. As a result, there may be changes required to the plans shown for drives, roads, ingress or egress, or other features related to traffic and access.

Infiltration islands and bioswales have been proposed for the development and are included in their stormwater management calculations.

The applicants have met with the site plan review committee members on July 9, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and have made all necessary revisions.

One letter of opposition was submitted by Marilyn Sanders.

18

Recommendation: Approve the request for site plan for ‘Galleria, II’ a retail development with the following conditions:

1. Approval is contingent on approval and acceptance of the FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) issued by FEMA in letter to the City dated October 15, 2014 without any changes. If there are changes made in the LOMR, the site must be re-evaluated for compliance with these changes.

2. Approval is contingent on the site plan, and subsequent construction, being fully compliant with all provisions of Chapter 42 of the Code of Ordinances, Flood Damage Prevention. This includes provisions for utilities.

3. Permits of any kind will not be issued prior to the effective date of the FIRM revision issued by FEMA. The effective date is currently set by FEMA as March 2, 2015.

4. Elevation Certificates will be required with submittal of the Construction drawings, for the buildings under construction (once the slab has been poured), and for the finished construction for a total of 3 separate elevation certificates per building. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted without Elevation Certificates.

5. Approval is contingent on the Board of Alderman accepting the LOMR.

6. Approval is contingent on approval of the Traffic Impact Study by the City and acceptance by the developer of any changes required by the City. Changes in the site layout may be required as a result of analysis of the Traffic Impact Study and any determined impact on Jackson Avenue, West Oxford Loop or other nearby streets or highways or as determined by the Public Works Director.

7. Approval is contingent on approval of the stormwater plan.

8. Signage for this development is not included in the site plan and requires approval by the building department prior to permitting.

Jeff Williams, of Williams Engineering appeared on behalf of the applicant and commented on the success of Galleria, Phase I, indicating that they fully expected Galleria, Phase II to meet similar expectations with the same or better product indicating that it will be open air venue; walking with restaurants and similar type of merchants and nationally recognized anchors. He further commented that access was covered, traffic impact study was done. Public Works department had additional questions which have been addressed. Revisions had been submitted on a number of occasions. While planning the site, every scenario onto Jackson Avenue was studied. Mr. Williams contended that access was pretty important to this project and along with the traffic impact study, resulted in access being placed in the four best places while also abiding with requests by the city regarding codes regulating traffic. Mr. Williams commented that the Galleria, Phase II is a complex project, from many different standpoints. Planning work on the project has been going on for over a year; with much of the time

19

spent dealing with FEMA and waiting for recommendations based on information they’ve had for several years when the creek was done. The grading plan was developed with the latest information provided by FEMA. DEQ became involved with the project being located so close to the creek and required capturing the first 1/2 inch of rain in bioswales and treat it before being released into the stream; playing a large part in the overall stormwater plan. Further commenting that it was a unique project and factors involved in the planning were different as far as erosion control stormwater treatment. Mr. Williams concluded his comments and asked for questions.

Commission Bishop asked about the right-of-way of the creek for the center of the creek on both banks. Mr. Williams, answered that he was not sure of that exact dimension, but assured Mr. Bishop that they were ten-feet outside of that easement, having worked closely with that issue with the Public Works department to not impede in any area that allows access to the creek.

Commissioner Bradley commented that he understood that there would be a traffic light at an access point into the shopping center placed just to the east of Mechanic Bank. Mr. Williams confirmed the location of the light and further commenting that it would be access that would line up with where he referred to as secondary access to Walmart. Commissioner Bradley also acknowledged the access points from Home Depot Drive and a third access point from West Oxford Loop, questioning the need for the forth. Mr. Williams commented that the question answered itself with the expected traffic that would be generated by the project further commenting that offering as many options for access is appropriate for the site and project. Mr. Williams further commented that there is a right in and right out only where the entrance to the trailer park currently exists.

Commissioner Whittington added that he had a concern for the drivers that come and turn from the left lane and pull in going in the opposite direction; giving the example of Walmart customers turning left across traffic into a restricted right-turn in entrance only lane. Mr. Williams commented that that had been discussed with the Public Works department and resulted in the design of the right turn in and out creating a near impossibility to make an illegal let turn in. Mr. Williams concluded by stating that when the complete traffic impact study is analyzed it will be apparent as to the importance of having that additional access point.

Commissioner Bradley ask Reanna Mayoral, Asst. City Engineer if the City Engineering department have a clear understanding that the western most access be only right turn in and right turn out? Ms. Mayoral responded that the submitted plan indicates three lanes, however the traffic impact study supports right turn in and right turn out only and as long as there is no conflict the City would support this recommendation. She indicated that whatever precautions necessary to restrict illegal left hand turns, they would be taken.

Discussion continued regarding the right turn in and out at Walmart and issues related to it along with a question for the need of an additional signal in close proximity to two other signals. Mr. Williams commented that there was much discussion about this entrance and indicated that it would be the main entrance to the center, but the City

20

indicated that it would be impossible because there is not a good place for a signal in that location along with the need to meet the distance requirements between existing lights.

Commissioner Bradley asked Reanna Mayoral, Asst. City Engineer if the City would prefer to eliminate the western access point or to allow it? Ms. Mayoral responded that until they have a complete understanding of the traffic impact study and consider all comments made by MDOT because the City signals would not be the only ones impacted they did not have a preference for either solution. Ms. Mayoral concluded that the recommendation would be contingent on the traffic study and the final recommendations that came from it indicating that the City had its own consultant as well.

Commissioner Whittington wanting to go on record commented that if it cannot be a protected right turn in and right turn out only that it would be eliminated altogether.

Shifting subjects, Commissioner Bishop asking if the parking requirements were any different in Phase II than in Phase I? Mr. Williams commented that he was not involved in the planning of Phase I. Further commented that the parking for Phase II had been minimized and there was less parking in Phase II. Commissioner Bishop asked about the landscaping of the parking lots. Mr. Williams commented that the landscape plan included bioswales rather than concrete islands and had been working with the City so to have a nice neat looking plan that it would serve two purposes, other than having the canopy that everyone would like to have, but is also capturing the stormwater and treating it.

Commissioner Bishop asked if a grant opportunity might provide a pathway along Goose Creek from the intramural fields.

Commissioner Gray with prior mention of walkability asked about the possibility of providing an additional walkway; possibly a bridge connecting the two Galleria Phases allowing pedestrian access rather than only vehicular access. Mr. Williams indicated that they had indicated pedestrian access in the conceptual plans, but that Home Depot would have to play a large part due to the need to acquire easements to allow the access and was ultimately dropped after not getting any positive feedback from Home Depot.

Commissioner Gray also asked if attempts for access had been pursued by other adjacent property owners giving Backyard Burgers as an example. Mr. Williams responded that alternative would be more complicated with the crossing at the bridge on Home Depot Drive and the need for consideration by the City to allow a pedestrian cross walk at that location. Commission Huelse commented that he thought there was a pedestrian crossing on the existing bridge showing up on the submitted aerial that included a crosswalk.

Commissioner Gray expressed additional concerns that the City was awaiting additional information in terms of the traffic study and could potentially have to look at the project again depending on the result of the study. Ms. Mayoral responded that Public Works was in the process of evaluating the study and allowing MDOT time to evaluate the study as well. Mr. Williams agreed that the list of conditions appeared daunting however, most were related to FEMA and the traffic study was set at maximum requests for access. Ms.

21

Mayoral concurred stating that there would be no requirement for additional points of access. The four access point would be the most allowed conversely there may be less required after further analysis of the traffic impact study. Commissioner Gray asked Ms. Mayoral; if one point of access was cut, how much more traffic would be forced down West Oxford Loop?

Chairman Harmon asked if there were any other questions from the Commission; likewise requesting questions from the audience. Hearing none, he asked for a motion for the case.

Commissioner Huelse made a motion to approve Case #1879 with all conditions listed. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. All present voting aye.

The site plan approval for Case #1879, the Galleria, Phase II was approved.

19. Public hearing for Case #1911 to amend the Land Use Map for property brought into in the City limits.

Due to the length of the meeting and additional cases to be heard the Commission discussed postponing all remaining city business to the next meeting date of November 20, 2014. Commissioner Huelse made a motion to postpone Case #1911. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion.

All present voted aye. The motion passed and Case #1911 was tabled.

20. Public hearing for Case #1892 to zone property that was recently brought in to the City containing a +/- 39.017 acre tract (PPIN7948) to (PB) Professional Business

Due to the length of the meeting and additional cases to be heard the Commission discussed postponing all remaining city business to the next meeting date of November 20, 2014. Commissioner Huelse made a motion to postpone Case #1892. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. All present voted aye. The motion passed and Case #1892 was tabled. 21. Public hearing for Case #1893 to zone property that was recently brought into the City containing a +/- 18.04 acre tract (PPIN7948) to (RE) Residential Estate Due to the length of the meeting and additional cases to be heard the Commission discussed postponing all remaining city business to the next meeting date of November 20, 2014. Commissioner Huelse made a motion to postpone Case #1893. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. All present voted aye.

22

The motion passed and Case #1893 was tabled. 22. Public hearing for Case #1906 - Site plan approval for ‘The Arbors’- a 98-unit residential development located at 805 College Hill Road in (GB) General Business and (RC) Multi-Unit Residential zoned district (Tabled)

23. Public hearing for Case #1907 - Preliminary plat approval for ‘The Heights, Phase III, a 41-lot residential subdivision located on property located in Lafayette County.

24. Move to Consent Agenda, Item 13A

25. Moved to Item 5A

26. Public hearing for Case #1910 – Request to rezone (11.93 acres) from (A) Agriculture to (RC) Multi-Unit Residential for property located in the 900 Block of South 18th Street. Planner Comments: The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 13.54 from Agricultural land developed as a mobile home park to conditional rezoning to multi-family development. There are 6.999 acres of land on the east side of South 18th Street and 4.905 acres on the west side of South 18th Street.

The criteria to rezone property are cited in a number of Mississippi cases and are as follows: 1) Mistake: There is a mistake in the original zoning (scrivener’s error) or

2) Change: to what extent the character of the neighborhood has changed regard to such major economic, zoning, physical, or social changes, if any, have occurred in the vicinity of the property in question.

3) Public Need: Is there a need in the area or neighborhood where the subject property is located for the requested zoning classification?

Mistake: Based on past zoning maps the there is no record of a mistake in the current zoning classification of the subject property. Change: There are no changes found at this time to warrant a change to multi-family to develop apartments.

23

Need: The need in the area for the proposed zoning to multi-family is not supported or documented. The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies this area as low density residential. The requested rezoning to change to multi-family zoning is not consistent with the adopted Map and Plan and not support by the planning staff. See the Land Use Map below: Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning because the request is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map. No mistake, change or need has been identified to support the request for rezoning to develop multi-family housing. Jeff Williams, Williams Engineering, was present before the Commission on behalf of the applicant to request rezoning of the property located at the 900 Block of 18th Street. The current property is zoned (A) Agricultural and is being used as a trailer park for residential use and argued that the current density based on use with a potential for 135 total units is currently being used at a higher density. Mr. Williams contended that the new hospital and Hwy. 7 fulfills the criteria for change and based on the proposed design for affordable housing and the limited amount of available of (RC) Multi-Unit Residential fulfills the criteria for need in additional zoning of (RC). He concluded respectfully asking for consideration of the conditional rezoning request. Chairman Harmon called for questions from the commission. Commissioner Gray asked Mr. Williams if the residents of the trailer park had been notified of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Patterson, a representative of the owner (Ms. Cox) appeared before the Commission in respond to Commissioner Gray’s question. Mr Patterson respond that he was working directly with the owner, but did not speak with any of the residents of the mobile home park. He expressed the owners desire to be free of the maintenance of the property due to her increasing age. Mr. Patterson continued comments regarding the owners and his ongoing work with them. Chairman Harmon asked for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Bishop discussed possible provisions to set aside units for affordable housing. Ms. Correll, simple responded that regardless of the need for affordable housing, the applicants request does not meet the land use standards. Mr. Williams contended that there was a change in zoning between the current Land Us Map and the 2004 Land Use Map. He commented that the change was made because (A) Agricultural was the only zoning district that allowed the continued use of the trailer park. Mr. Williams continued commenting that the owner is trying to go into a different direction, concluding that (A) Agricultural zoning in the city is ridiculous.

24

Mr. Jay Chain, attorney representing the purchasers of the property appeared before the commission to address the topic of affordable housing and what is adequate for a person to live in and compared a trailer akin to an automobile and its short life cycle and the burden of replacement. He questioned the need for any property zoned agriculture in the city. Fred Lorenzo appeared to speak to his concern regarding affordable housing and the applicants proposed development pushing the current residents to the outer fringes. He encouraged the development of modest single family homes similar to those existing in the area. Mr. Patterson replied that it was not their intention to displace any of the residents, but rather provide alternative affordable housing for them, employees of the new hospital and students Discussion continued regarding displacement of residents, affordable housing, and possible assistance. Chairman Harmon called for questions. Commissioner Huelse called for further explanation of the Future Land Use Map and the existing Land Use Map. Due to the length of the meeting running 20 minutes past the prescribed ending time and in view of the fact of this ambiguity of the existing zoning, Commissioner Bradley made a motion to table Case #1910. Commissioner Huelse seconded the motion. All present voting aye. The motion carried and Case #1910 was table. Chairman Harmon recessed the meeting until November 20, 2014.