City of Oxford Planning Commission April 13, 2015 … · City of Oxford Planning Commission April 13, ... Director of Planning, ... Condition 2) The Tanglewood Homeowners Association

1

City of Oxford Planning Commission April 13, 2015

SUMMARY MEETING MINUTES Planning Commission: Darryail Whittington Duncan Gray Watt Bishop Mark Huelse Hayden Alexander Michael Harmon (chairman) John Bradley I. Meeting called to order at 5:04 pm II. Review and Approval of Agenda Commissioner Huelse request that Chairman Harmon amend the agenda to move Cases 1914 & 1937 to the regular agenda. Additionally, Commissioner Huelse requested that Cases 1942 & 1946 be heard back to back. Paul Watkins suggest that Case #1936 also be moved to the regular agenda. Commissioner Huelse made the formal request to move Case #1936 to the regular agenda. Motion carries unanimously. III. Review and Approval of Minutes from March 09, 2014.

The minutes from March 9, 2015 meetings were provided for review. Motion to approve the minutes

with the changes as presented. Motion carries unanimously.

IV. The Planning and Building Official Report Director of Planning, Andrea Correll presented two memos informing the Commission that two cases withdrew from the Planning Commission. Additionally, Ms. Correll presented a memo that summarized the activities around Vision 2037, a planning process currently underway to update the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Motion to approve the Planning and Building Official Report. Motion carries unanimously. V. Public hearing for Case # 1938 a revised Site Plan approval for Parkway Centre located at

26002700 block of West Oxford Loop.

Planner’s Comments:

The applicant is seeking site plan approval to increase the number of buildings in the current

existing office park to have thirteen buildings instead of previously approved twelve buildings.

Staff: Andrea Correll Katrina Hourin Ben Requet Advisory Member: Bart Robinson Legal Counsel: Paul Watkins

DRAFT

2

Eight buildings were approved in phase I case# 1424 and three buildings were added in phase II

case# 1836. The proposed additional building is consistent with the previous approval

referenced above.

Recommendation: Approve the requested revised site plan to enable recordation of the

condominium plat.

Summary of Discussion:

Commissioner Huelse – Motion to approve the request. Commissioner Bishop – 2nd the motion.

The motion for a variance request is approved unanimously by all present. VI. Public Hearing for Case #1939 for a plat modification to enable combination of two lots in the

Grove at Grand Oaks Phase II located at 310 Fazio Drive.


The subject property is a combination plat for two lots in Phase II of “The Grove of Grand Oaks."

The property is located in the Grand Oaks PUD II in Section 26 of the Grand Oaks Planned Unit

Development. The modification is shown outlined in red and will combine lots 23 &24 into one

lot 23. The request was reviewed by staff for compliance.

The purpose of the request is to enable Dr. Leach to build is home on a larger lot totaling 1.74

acres.

Recommendation: Approve the request for plat modification for Phase II of “The Grove at

Grand Oaks’ in the Grand Oaks, PUD II, Planned Unit Development with the following condition:

1. A copy of the stamped recorded version of the covenants for the subdivision is

submitted to the planning department prior to permitting.

Summary of Discussion: Commissioner Whittington – I couldn’t find the sign when I went to look at the property at question. When I did find the sign, it was in the back of a pickup truck. Commissioner Bradley – As I understand the Home Owner’s Association has approved this plan? This amendment to the plat. There is a letter in the material to that effect. Larry Britt – That is correct. Yes, sir. Paul Watkins – We have appeared to have lost several signs from several sites, recently. Just for the public’s information, the signs are up there both to fulfill legal requirements and to give all the neighbors around notice of what is going on at these meetings. It wpould be really helpful if those signs stay where they are supposed to and if someone has a question about it, if they could call the planning department to as the question instead of removing the sign.

Commissioner Huelse – Motion to approve the request.

DRAFT

3

Commissioner Bradley – 2nd the motion.

The motion for variance request is approved unanimously by all present.

VII. Public Hearing for Case #1914 Site Plan Approval for ‘The District at 17th’ made up of six units located in three buildings containing a total of 24 beds in a residential condominium development zoned RC located in the 200 block of south 17th

Planner’s Comments: The subject property is located on the east side of South 17th Street and

is a combination of two adjacent lots measuring an approximate total of .566 acres. Currently

existing on the site are two, single family residences. The topography peaks in the northeastern

portion of the site and falls a distance of approximately 23-feet to the southern end.

The applicant is seeking site plan approval to construct a 6-unit, 24 bedroom residential

condominium development. Ingress and Egress drive are located on the north end of the site

and parking is provided below the units in an underground 26-space lot. Retaining walls are

located on the northeast corner, along the drive, and around the structure to the southeast.

Stormwater is managed in a retention area on the south side of the property. A number of

trees are to be removed, but two large trees are designated to remain.

The applicant met with the site plan review committee on September 9, 2014, September 24,

2014, October 1, 2014 and November 19, 2014 and has met all requirements for compliance. In

December of 2014 the case was tabled by the City Attorney. The site plan is now ready for your

consideration.

Recommendation: Approve the request for The District at 17th Street’ a residential

condominium development with the following conditions:

1. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the storm water management for the project must

be approved by the city public works department.

2. Approval of the site plan is contingent on approval of the Stormwater Variance or an

approved stormwater plan.

3. A copy of the covenants as recorded with Chancery Clerks office to be submitted to the

planning department prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy.

4. Site plan filed with the chancery clerk to contain language regarding: i. 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.

DRAFT

4

5. The covenants shall include language that the ‘Non-parking areas will be the owner’s responsibility to enforce.

6. Any landscape plan for the bioswales indicated to be designed by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor/designer submitted prior to permitting.

7. In addition to submitted landscape plan,

Developer shall provide and install 2” caliper trees of the Tanglewood Homeowner Association’s selection to be spaced at a maximum of 10’ on ce3nter along the adjoining northern and eastern property.

The Tanglewood Homeowner Association shall provide a landscape easement for the

installation of required landscaping.(see attached illustration)

Summary of Discussion:

John Granberry – I am the engineer of record for the project. Commissioner Huelse – Reading through the case, I didn’t see anything addressing the neighbors’ concerns. John Granberry – I may not be aware of those. Commissioner Huelse – He has concerns of the stability of retaining walls, noise buffer, landscaping, etc. John Granberry – I am sure the developer would be more than willing work this out if the adjacent land owners would be willing as well. Commissioner Gray – Sounds like this is something that we could table and let them get together to see if everyone could get on the same page and see if it satisfies what they are concerned about. John Granberry – We would like to see this approved today, I know the adjacent land owner does have some concerns but I do believe we are meeting all the city’s standards. Commissioner Bradley – From my point of view, once it gets approved then there is no incentive at all for you people to do anything. Clint Done – I represent Mr. Cleveland and the Tanglewood homeowners association. Primary concerns are just a general buffer for the way the elevation sits and want to make sure his structural integrity stays intact. The noise buffer and basically, something for sight privacy and noise. Commissioner Bradley – If this is approved, you trust these people to do what is needed. Clint Done – Conditions need to be expressed. Commissioner Bradley – If we delayed consideration of this case for a half-hour could you come up with expressed conditions that would be satisfactory to both of you? Commissioner Bradley – We want expressed language at that time. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we defer this for a short time pending their return with an agreement on conditions.

Commissioner Bradley – Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the consideration of 1914 be deferred for some relatively short time pending their return with agreement on language on conditions for landscape buffer.

DRAFT

5

Commissioner Huelse – 2nd the motion.

The motion to defer Case #1914 for a short time is approved unanimously by all present.

John Granberry – We have worked for the homeowner’s association representatives and we have developed some language that we would like to present. Conditions are as follows: Condition 1) In addition to submitted landscape plan developer shall provide and install 2” caliper trees of the Tanglewood Homeowner’s Association selection to be spaced at a maximum 10’ on center along the adjoining northern and eastern property lines. Condition 2) The Tanglewood Homeowner’s Association shall provide a landscaping easement for the installation of required landscaping. That basically gives the Tanglewood Homeowner’s Association the ability to choose which trees that decide to pick with a maximum 10’ spacing to provide a noise buffer between the properties. Chairman Harmon – Those two would be in addition to the 6 other conditions included in the planner’s comments? John Granberry – Yes. Commissioner Bradley – Will this property have the same owner as the property just to the north of those buildings built? John Granberry – It is a different owner. Commissioner Bradley – How many really big trees will be taken down and killed by construction? John Granberry – We really try to protect the trees during construction. I believe that 2 are remaining out of 6. Commissioner Bradley – Will there be more runoff? John Granberry – No sir.

Commissioner Whittington made a motion to approve the request for Site Plan Approval with the conditions set by the staff and the two additional conditions developed with the Homeowner’s Association representative.

Commissioner Bishop 2nd the motion.

The motion for Site Plan Approval is approved unanimously by all present. (Commissioner Bradley voted Nay)

VIII. Public hearing for Case #1936 Site Plan approval for the new FNC Campus located at 101 FNC

Drive.


The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot located on the south side of Belk Boulevard, west of

Highway 7, measures approximately 20.35 acres and is currently vacant land.

DRAFT

6

The applicant is seeking to construct a three-story, 68,934 sq/ft building. The applicant is proposing two

points of ingress and egress, one being developed by MDOT off of Highway 7 and the other off of Belk

Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a private drive that will connect both points of ingress and egress.

This site plan does include two proposed transit stops, both within a ¼ mile of the building. This building

has a proposed height of forty-five (45) feet which is allowed according to 145.07 Design Standards of

the Planned Employment Overlay District.

Currently, the stormwater management plan is still under review by the Public Works Department.

The applicant has met with staff, has made all necessary revisions required by the Site Plan Review

Committee and is in compliance with all ordinances of the Land Development Code. According to the

recently amended ordinance, Article 9, Section 226, “No application requiring approval by the Planning

Commission or Board of Adjustment shall be heard before the complete submittal has been on file with

the Director of Planning for at least 45 days.” This complete application was received on February 9,

2015 and complies with the newly amended ordinance.

Recommendation: Approve the request for site plan for ‘FNC Headquarters’ with the following

conditions:

1. All stormwater requirements are met and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Summary of Discussion: Paul Koshenina – Representing FNC along with Glen Evans. Commissioner Bradley asked for more information about the street that provides access to the proposed FNC Campus.

Commissioner Bradley made a motion to approve the request for Site Plan Approval. Commissioner Whittington 2nd the motion.

The motion for Site Plan Approval is approved unanimously by all present.

IX. Public hearing for Case #1937 Site Plan approval for Your Extra Closet located at 8 Industrial Park Drive.


The subject property is a regularly shaped lot located on the south side of Industrial Park Drive and

measures approximately 9.19 acres. Currently, existing on the east side of the property are six (6)

storage unit facilities.

The applicant is seeking to construct an additional six (6) - storage unit facilities on the west side of the

property. One (1) building, nearest to Industrial Park Drive, will be climate controlled and the other five

(5) buildings will be non-climate controlled. Currently, there are two points of existing ingress and egress

with no proposed additions.

DRAFT

7

The stormwater management plan has been approved by the Public Works Department.

The applicant has met with staff and has made all necessary revisions required by the Site Plan Review

Committee. According to the recently amended ordinance, Article 9, Section 226, “No application

requiring approval by the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment shall be heard before the

complete submittal has been on file with the Director of Planning for at least 45 days.” This complete

application was received on February 2, 2015 and complies with the newly amended ordinance.

Recommendation: Approve the request for site plan for ‘Your Extra Closet’ located on Industrial Drive.

Summary of Discussion: Paul Koshenina – I am representing Floyd Hubbell on this site plan. Commissioner Huelse – My main question is the façade on the north facing climate control building that faces clubhouse drive, that is the main entrance to the Grove at Grand Oaks and I didn’t see anything being done other than a metal building. Paul Koshenina – Of course I am not aware of any architectural controls but I believe it is fair to ask Mr. Hubbell of his intent to the building. Commissioner Bradley – Paul, did I understand you correctly, that there are no architectural controls so that no matter how sorry something looks or how unattractive it looks, if it meets the technical details, then it goes up. Paul Koshenina – I don’t believe there are any architectural controls. Floyd Hubbell – No one has addressed the side of the building should look. No one has requested anything for this building. Commissioner Bradley – My point is that we are going into a new Comprehensive Plan that will lead to a new Land Development Code and it is my hope that the new code that is adopted will include something like architectural controls so that a person can’t put up any kind of thing even if it is detrimental to the larger community. I am just saying what I personally think is absolutely advisable for the city to do going forward. Mark Huelse – My question is would you be willing to do something to the north facade, the entrance to the private school, the country club and one of the premier subdivisions in the community. Floyd Hubbell – I have conducted business there for almost 10 years, if you every have seen any of my facilities, I try to spend a lot of time and effort trying to make them look good. I would rather do that with landscaping and keeping the m clean and mowed. I would not like to spend the excess money on wrapping the building to the north side. Commissioner Whittington – If you plant the same size trees that is there already it may help cover up. Floyd Hubbell – I could certainly do that. I would rather put in nice landscaping. I need to because if it doesn’t look good, people don’t want to come in.

Chairman Harmon made a motion to approve the request for Site Plan Approval. Commissioner Bradley 2nd the motion. Commissioner Huelse abstained

The motion for Site Plan Approval is approved unanimously by all present.

DRAFT

8

X. Case# 1930 – Request for a 3.5 - foot side yard variance for 208 Colonial Road to remedy an existing non-conformity.


The subject property is a 0.5 acre lot off of Colonial Drive. This section of the Country Club Subdivision was platted and developed in the late 1960s. The City of Oxford’s first Zoning Map is dated 1971. The applicant discovered that the original home was across the west side setback line approximately 4 feet. To remedy the non-conforming status of the existing structure the applicant is seeking a variance. The proposed porch would be one foot over the setback line. The special conditions and circumstances of the home building built across the current setback line prior to zoning in Oxford are not a result of the applicant’s actions. Finally, granting the variance request would not provide the applicant any special privilege that have not previously been granted to other applicants in similar circumstances. It is the goal of the applicant to be able to build back their home should a fire or other disaster occur. 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 the 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: Due to the home meeting the standards of the City and subdivision when it was built in the late 1960s the staff recommends approval of the (west) side yard setback variance request of four feet on the existing home and one foot on the proposed porch with the following condition:

1. Variance request is for the attached plan

Summary of Discussion George Haymans – I have a letter for your record from the neighbors immediately adjoining the property supporting the request. A couple of houses on the street are literally one foot from the property line much less than the setback.

DRAFT

2

Commissioner Whittington – Motion to approve the request. Commissioner Bishop – 2nd the motion.

The motion for variance request is approved unanimously by all present.

XI. Public Hearing for Case 1940 Request for a thirty-foot side yard variance for property located 908 N. Lamar Blvd.


The applicant is proposing to redevelop the commercial property and seeks a variance to reduce the setback required with the vacant electric company building, which has contained a business since before 2004 in the (RB) two-family residential zoning district. This property and corridor of North Lamar was originally zoned (HC) Highway Commercial in 1971 and changed to (NB) neighborhood business after the last comprehensive plan. Please find an excerpt of the current Zoning Map attached.

In granting variances and modifications, the planning commission may require such conditions as will, in its judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements so varied or modified.

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;


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: If the applicant can demonstrate real difficulties and substantial hardship or injustices,

staff would support granting the variance request with the following condition:

1. Variance request is for the attached plan

Summary of Discussion: Johnny Morgan – Seeking to get a variance on this property. The property to the east is not residential, it is clearly commercial. I am just asking for the commercial setbacks to apply to this property.

Commissioner Alexander – Motion to approve the variance request Commissioner Huelse – 2nd the motion. The motion for variance request is approved unanimously by all present.

DRAFT

3

XII. Public Hearing for Case #1941Request for a fence height variance for 3.5 foot fence height variance and a building orientation variance from Section 126.14 for property located at 1011 South 11th Street.

Planner’s Comments: The subject property is a regularly shaped lot located on the corner of South 11th Street, Lincoln Avenue and South Lamar Boulevard and measures approximately 14,700 square feet. Located in the South Lamar Historic Preservation District, the subject property is similar in size and style to those home located along South 11th Street which is circa 1935. The front of the existing structure is orientated to South 11th Street with vehicular access to the existing carport along Lincoln Avenue and an existing fence located along Lincoln as well. However, the property also extends east to South Lamar Boulevard creating a highly unusual circumstance of fronting on three public right of ways. The applicant, with plans for an addition to the residence is seeking: A) 3-foot fence height variance B) a variance from Section 126.14 regulating building orientation. Part A) Section 126.04 of Oxford’s Land Development Code addressing fences states: “……no fence, wall or hedge along the sides or edge of any yard which fronts upon a public street shall be over 2-feet, 6-inches in height.” Furthermore, Section 157 states:”…no fence, wall or hedge which is also a screen located in front of any building line shall exceed 30-inches. However, fences, which allow for visibility, such as wrought iron fences, may be four feet high in the front of the front building line.” With a concern for safety, security and privacy together with the inability to have a rear yard the applicant is seeking to replace the existing non-conforming 5-foot, 9-inch privacy fence with a new 7- foot fence. The design of the proposed fence consists of 5-feet of solid fencing and a 2-foot lattice cap detail. Part B) Section 126.14 Building Orientation states: ‘On lots with frontage on existing streets, buildings shall be oriented to the existing street. In the instance where multiple buildings are located on a site, this building orientation applies only to those buildings regulated by the front yard setback requirements’. Technically, the subject property consists of three-fronts and one side creating a hardship. Due to this unusual hardship, the applicant is seeking relief from this requirement for both the northeast fronts to allow for a fence and a rear carport. The east side will be planted heavily to buffer the carport from North Lamar Boulevard. A variance request may be granted under the terms of the Ordinance if after the applicant can demonstrate the following:


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



DRAFT

4

Recommendation: Due to the hardship created by fronting on three public right-of-ways, staff recommends approval of: Part A) Three-foot fence height variance with the following condition:

2. Variance request is for the attached site plan

Part B) Relief from Section 126.14 regarding building orientation for the north and east public-right of ways with the following condition: 2. Variance request is for the attached plan and installation of the proposed fence and landscape details. Summary of Discussion Commissioner Bradley – Would there be a fence along South Lamar? Katrina Hourin – Just a fence along South 11th & Lincoln. There is a portion of the fence that will be on S. Lamar but if is mostly behind the building. This is a highly unusual case and I believe there are special circumstances to this case. Amy Catherine Wilson – Representing the Wicker’s. Part A

Commissioner Huelse – Motion to approve Case #1941 Parts A & B Commissioner Alexander – 2nd the motion. The motion for approval of the request is approved unanimously by all present.

XIII. Public Hearing for Case #1942Request for a 10 foot front yard variance for property

located at 1094 Augusta Drive.

Planner’s Comments: The subject property is an unimproved residential lot located on the west side of Augusta Drive in the first Phase of Grand Oaks, Phase I and measures approximately 26,000 square feet. The topography on the subject property is typical for Oxford and there appears to be a 25-28 foot drop from the front of the street to the rear property line. Due to the changing topography, variation in lot size, area and depth, the building footprints of homes in Grand Oaks differ greatly. The applicant is proposing to construct a residence on the property and is seeking a 10-foot front (east) yard setback variance to allow for the front porch and balcony above to encroach into the front setbacks by 10-feet. A variance request may be granted under the terms of the Ordinance after the applicant can demonstrate the following:


DRAFT

5

b. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the 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


Recommendation: If the applicant can demonstrate a hardship staff recommends the following condition:

1. The variance applies to the attached site plan.

Summary of Discussion Cory Alger – What we did was that we looked at what the neighbors have and we measured the setbacks from the front of the house to the curb. We are looking to design the house so that the house sits on the setback and the porch is a little into the setback. The Homeowner’s Association has reviewed the application and have signed off on it. We are just asking for the porch to be allowed in the setback and none of the main body of the house. Commissioner Bradley – Mr. Alger, what is the source of the 50 foot setback requirement? Cory Alger – It is a covenant setback. Cory Alger – The Homeowner’s Association was unanimous in supporting this. Commissioner Gray – How wide is this porch? Cory Alger – It is 9 feet deep. Commissioner Gray – It doesn’t look like it starts dropping off until 20-30 feet or so. We had a case a couple months ago that had a similar issue and we asked them to move it back. Could we not just move the porch back a little bit so the porch is within the setback? Cory Alger – Sure, we could put the house back here but the slope is so steep back here that it is best for the house to be in the presented location because it is flatter.

Commissioner Bradley – Motion to approve the variance request. Commissioner Bishop – 2nd the motion. Commissioner Gray Abstained The motion for approval of the request is approved unanimously by all present.

XIV. Public Hearing for Case #1946Request for Special Exception for an accessory dwelling located at 3820 Majestic Oaks Drive.

Planners Comments: The subject property is a regularly shaped lot totally 2.29 acres of land. The

principal dwelling is located at the top of hill. The request is in keeping with the intent of the

Ordinance and will remain consistent with the adjacent homes on large lots around it.

Recommendation: Approval of the requested accessory dwelling

Summary of Discussion: Commissioner Bradley – Is there a PUD provision or a covenant provision that is pertinent to an Accessory structure on this lot?

DRAFT

6

Andrea Correll – It has not been my role to review covenants rather, to enforce our zoning code. Paul Watkins – I don’t know if the covenants cover accessory structures that is up to the land owner to make sure they comply with that. Commissioner Bradley – It is my view, I am not willing to vote in favor of something that violates the covenants. I think the covenants are not secret, they are a matter of public record. Preston Lee – The lot that you are considering is not in PUD I or PUD II. The lot was in the county and was not under any PUD or zoning. This lot sits between PUD I or PUD II. I do have a letter from the homeowner’s association which does say that I am in compliance with the covenants. We are intending to turn this house into an accessory dwelling. Take the building, remove the vinyl siding and make it mirror my home. The building is there and my goal is to make it look prettier. Commissioner Bradley – I think the answer is that Grand Oaks covenants do not address accessory structures. That the architectural committee has approved this as being in compliance with whatever the regulations are. There is nothing inconsistent with our voting in favor of this and what the covenants would allow.

Commissioner Whittington – Motion to approve this request. Commissioner Alexander – 2nd the motion. The motion for approval of the request is approved unanimously by all present.

XV. Public Hearing for Case #1943Request for a parking variance for Innovation Acquisitions property located in the 4000 block of Oxford Way in the Oxford Farm development

formerly known as Callicutt Farms.

Planners Comments: The applicant is seeking a variance to decrease the number of required parking spaces. The proposed site plan for a new multi-family development in Callicutt Farms will have 256 units with 790 beds, which requires 790 parking spaces for each bed and 128 additional spaces for guest parking. This request is to provide fewer parking spaces in order to save trees. The ordinance requires 918 parking spaces. The applicant is asking to reduce parking by 128 spaces or being received of the requirement for guest parking. If the variance is granted approximately two acres of existing hard wood and evergreen trees will be preserved including approximately 10 heritage trees and 21 specimen trees. A variance request may be granted under the terms of the Ordinance after the applicant can demonstrate the following:


b. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the

applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance;


DRAFT

7


Recommendation: Staff does not support the request. Other layouts or tandem parking spaces could be provided. Some developments in university towns have tandem parking spaces for units, and roommates have to shift cars as they would in a single-car width garage or driveway. Summary of Discussion Henry Minor – The current site plan as proposed, has 64 fewer spaces than required. There are 256 units which would require 128 guest parking spaces. We are proposing to reduce the visitor’s parking by 64 spaces. Andrea Correll – the conditions of the zoning at that time were that there only be three bedrooms in these units. Commissioner Gray – I presume that you have seen the email from Hume Bryant regarding reducing the size of the parking spaces. Henry Minor – I appreciate his efforts and attempting to find alternate ways that we could meet this. If we have a straight line of parking, then his math would work but because we have isolated areas of parking, I don’t believe we would be able to meet the requirements. Andrea Correll – In other college communities, if you have a unit with another roommate, you would have to adjust your car as needed. You have the number of parking spaces as needed. Duncan Gray – Would the tandem parking save square footage? Andrea Correll – I don’t know. Jeff Williams – If you provided the spaces to park, you are going to take up the same amount of space. Commissioner Huelse – If you were not trying to reduce parking places, would you be in front of us? Jeff Williams – No. It is very difficult for me to visualize that many students following those type of spots. Henry Minor – The current plan provides 64 fewer spaces and we believe we can save 2 acres of hardwoods. Commissioner Bradley – Here is why I am skeptical. There was a man from Memphis and he stood right there and I asked if he was willing to provide an additional traffic lane there. I have good reason to be skeptical. If you save space to build and additional. The owner would probably lose a little potential revenue. Jeff Williams – I think if you go back and read the minutes, I believe you will find the discussion says that acceleration and deceleration lanes. Chairman Harmon - I make a motion for case #1943 to be table for further discussion to come up with a better situation to handle this.

Chairman Harmon – I make a motion for case #1943 to be table for further discussion to come up with a better situation to handle this.

Commissioner Bradley – 2nd the motion. The motion to table the case passes with a 5-2 vote. Commissioners Alexander & Whittington

vote Nay.

XVI. Public Hearing for Case #1944 Request for a twofoot side yard variance for property located at 114 Phillip Drive

Planners Comments: The subject property is an irregularly shaped interior residential lot located on the east side of Phillip Road in the Stone subdivision. Measuring approximately 42,000 square feet, the subject

DRAFT

8

property is similar in size and style to the surrounding homes in this well-established subdivision dating back to the 1940’s and 50’s. Due to the topography, the lots in the subdivision are unusually shaped and vary considerably in size to one another. The lot is rectangular and longer in length than width with the exception of how it meets the street, which is at an angle. The existing structure parallels the angle at the street creating an unusual juxtaposition relative to regular shaped portion of the lot. The topography is fairly level at the street, however drops in elevation approximately 18-feet from front to rear. Nearly half of the lot remains undisturbed to the east. The applicant is seeking to construct an addition in the rear of the existing structure. Due to the awkward orientation of the structure to the lot the applicant is seeking a two (2’) foot side (south) yard variance. Two letters of support from the adjacent neighbors accompany this request. A variance request may be granted under the terms of the Ordinance if after the following can be demonstrated:



rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance;



Recommendation: If the applicant can demonstrate a hardship not self-created staff recommends the following condition:

1. Variance request is for the attached site plan

Summary of Discussion Jason Bailey – There is 13’10” from the property line to the corner of the house. We asked for a 2’ variance but it is actually going to be 1’2”. The hardship that I have is that when this house was built, it was in the county and zoning did not exist. The house faces Phillip Road and it parallels Phillip Road and it turns the house on an angle. I am here today to ask for this variance. What we plan to do is an addition and the angle is the hardship but we have one bathroom between four people which may be the greater hardship. I have spoken with both the neighbors and they have presented a letter of support.

Commissioner Bradley – Motion to approve this request. Commissioner Huelse – 2nd the motion. The motion for approval of the request is approved unanimously by all present.

XVII. Public Hearing for Case #1945Request for Special Exception for a home office located at 494 Alexa Drive.

DRAFT

9

Planners Comments: The subject property is a single family residence located on the south side of

Anderson Road in Goose Creek Estates subdivision. The applicant is requesting a special exception for a

home office to sell computer software over the internet. The applicant has agreed to follow all limitations

set forth in Section 156.01 of the Land Development Code.

The applicant has letters of support from three of his neighbors.

Recommendation: Approve the request for special exception for a home occupation based on the

following condition and finding:

1. The special exception shall be granted for only the proposed use and the current address and

applicant

2. Granting of the special exception will not adversely affect the public interest.

Summary of Discussion Adhithya Ravishankar – I am a student at Ole Miss. I have nothing else to add. I have spoken with my neighbors and they had no issue with my request. Two of my neighbors are professors and thought this was a great idea. Commissioner Gray – Will the software be purchased at your residence or is it purchased online?

Chairman Harmon – Motion to deny the rezoning request. Commissioner Gray – 2nd the motion. The motion for approval of the request is approved unanimously by all present.

XVIII. Public hearing for Case #1947 – Request to zone property in the Blackberry Hill, Planned Unit Development to (A) Agricultural containing +/ 234.8 acres bounded on the east by Christman Drive and Molly Bar Rd. to the south which was omitted during annexation of the properties by the City in 2007. The property is further identified as PPIN #27679, PPIN #30470, PPIN #27678, PPIN#30880, PPIN#30881, PPIN#30882, PPIN#30883, PPIN#18585, PPIN#4971, PPIN#18586, PPIN#30663, PPIN#27674, PPIN#30362, PPIN#4975 and PPIN# 26268.

Planners Comments: The requested Zoning by staff is consistent with approved Master Plan. Please find

attached the previous cases for your information. The only land included in this request in the +/- 234.8

acres without the underlying zoning need for the PUD overlay.

Recommendation: Zone the 234.8 acres of land to agricultural further identified as PPIN #27679, PPIN

#30470, PPIN #27678, PPIN#30880, PPIN#30881, PPIN#30882, PPIN#30883, PPIN#18585, PPIN#4971,

PPIN#18586, PPIN#30663, PPIN#27674, PPIN#30362, PPIN#4975 and PPIN# 26268.

Summary of Discussion Tom Howorth – My understanding of this, we acquired this property in 2005 and it was all in the county and not zoned. We were proceeding to develop a portion in 2007. We didn’t proceed at that time but we are moving forward at this time. It is a procedural change but doesn’t change increase or decrease the development privileges that we have associated with this property. Matthew Kopp – Is it going to be at those individual requests for a zoning variance.

DRAFT

10

Andrea Correll – In the last couple of years, a PUD is a type of zoning. When they come back they will get a special exception for that zoning. It will come back before it is developed. They have lot choice that indicate the type of density. Matthew Kopp – I just want to clarify is that we are trying to get away from PUDs for zoning. Andrea Correll – This is an old PUD and we have to work with how it was originally started but yes, we are getting away from that.

Commissioner Bradley – Motion to approve this request. Commissioner Huelse – 2nd the motion. The motion for approval of the request is approved unanimously by all present.

XIX. Consider Executive Session

Commissioner Bradley – Motion to consider Executive Session Chairman Harmon – 2nd the motion. The motion to consider Executive Session is approved unanimously by all present.

The reason the Commission is considering entering Executive Session is to speak about a matter concerning potential future litigation specifically related to the Jackson Row development.

Chairman Harmon – Motion to return to Regular Session. Commissioner Huelse – 2nd the motion. The motion to return to Regular Session is approved unanimously by all present.

XX. Public Hearing for Case #1948 Request for an extension of time related to a Special Exception (renewal) for Jackson Row located at 410 Jackson Avenue East.

Planners Comments: A special exception for multi-unit residential use and a site plan were

approved by the Commission for this project in December 2012, with the condition that a building

permit be granted within eighteen (18) months. The approved project would be around 75,000 square

feet, and about 10,600 square feet would be dedicated for commercial and retail use. The residential

portion of the development was planned for 80 units and 225 beds. The developer promised 232

underground parking spaces.

The original applicant began demolition on the site in July 2013, paid the building permit fee in June

2014, and submitted construction plans for building permit approval. Because the “tieback” system

used to secure the walls of the underground parking structure would need to be placed underneath

property belonging to adjacent landowners, the Building Department told the applicant to provide the

necessary easements before final review and approval of the construction plans. The easements were

not provided to the City, and no building permit was issued. The new owner is now procuring the

required easements.

After the project was sold in late 2014, the City discovered that the construction plans did not comply

with the special exception granted – there were too few parking spaces shown, and there was not

enough commercial space. The new owner has worked diligently with the City to correct these issues

and is prepared to begin excavation in short order.

DRAFT

11

While the permitting process was ongoing by the time the original 18-month period elapsed, staff has

recommended that the applicant seek an extension of time out of an abundance of caution. The

conditional timeline is the only part of the special exception the applicant seeks to alter. The Planning

Department’s opinion is that the current plans comply with the special exception originally granted for

the project and site plan. Recommendation: Approve an extension of time for the special exception previously granted for

‘Jackson Row,’ a multi-use development with the following finding and conditions:

1. Granting of the extension of time does not adversely affect the public interest.

2. The following construction milestones shall be met:

Mobilization/groundbreaking 6/1/2015

Footing/Foundation complete 12/1/2015

Built to grade 3/31/2016 3. Return to the December Planning Commission meeting to give a status report on the project and

document the milestone to date have been met. 4. The exterior of the project as built shall be substantially the same with respect to size and

aesthetics as shown on the exterior elevations submitted to and approved by the Planning

Commission in December 2012.

Summary of Discussion Chris Johnson – Representing CA Ventures. I do believe that you have been furnished with a letter that includes a timeline and the criteria that we have tried to meet. I do want to make you aware of a couple of things. We started as a student development housing developer 10 years ago and we have 9,000,000 sq/ft in 13 states. We have been doing development and management for a long time. Highlights since this letter was received. The first of course would be the provision of the additional bond that goes above and beyond and considers the excavation of this project. With discussion of the staff and city attorney, we understood the precautions they were trying to make. Some of the remaining milestones was peer review and presentation of the shoring drawings. We have gone back and forth with language and nearing a completion of that. May 1st when we intend to execute all of these easements and with the submission of the CFI. Additionally, you have been furnished with our construction milestones and right now we have a date of June 1st and beginning mid-December of the upper level parking garage. The last thing, I would like to conclude with the number of jobs. 6-10 part-time commercial businesses that are there. Point out that there has been an ill feeling of the property owners to the south and we have worked out agreements. Public improvements. Longer range plan and larger perspective of completing the university and downtown development. Commissioner Bradley – What would this project look like from Jackson Ave? Chris Johnson – We did bring some presentation boards if you would like. Commissioner Bradley – Would it look like the same project that we approved 2012? Chris Johnson – Yes sir. Commissioner Bradley – What do you anticipate the cost of completion to acquisition. Chris Johnson – I do understand the land and hard costs to be in excess of $20 million. Commissioner Bradley – Where are you going to get the money?

DRAFT

12

Chris Johnson – I can’t speak in detail but we have groups of investors and tremendously successful financing. Commissioner Bishop – You mentioned other projects in how many states? Chris Johnson – I believe 13 other states operating. Commissioner Bishop – How does the $20 compare to other projects? Chris Johnson – I think it is comparable. We have other projects that have higher density and a little more expensive. Commissioner Huelse - What are some agreeable milestones? Chris Johnson – I am agreeable to 6 months to excavation. Commissioner Huelse – I think we are more concerned with the initial 6-9 months. Chris Johnson – We have not walked away from a project to date in our company’s history. Bart Robinson – They will want a start specific date. Mark Huelse – I am not concerned about milestones. Commissioner Whittington – My wife is sitting with me in the car. Chris Johnson – It’s a smile missing a tooth and we want to replace that tooth. Without having the full construction schedule easily by sometime in the spring of 2016, you will see something above grade. Richard Nina – Montgomery Martin Contractors. 8-10 months in the ground, 8-10 months above ground. 19-20 months. Andrea Correll – What conditions can we agree to that is mutual? Commissioner Alexander – What is a reasonable time for excavation timeline. Richard Nina – June 1 is our target for the dirt. You have to put a new shoring and take it out five feet at a time. That will take 3-4 months. That includes all the dirt work and shoring. We will get to the bottom and pour a slab. Richard Nina – June 1 to back to grade March 2016. From there, we begin the residential building. We will fence the site, we will screen it as best as we can. That will probably alleviate the eyesore. You have probably seen similar screening. Commissioner Whittington – Are those dates attainable? Richard Nina – The mid-level is not the top level. There is another, the next level, the 362 grade which is the center grade of the site, March 2016. Paul Watkins – There will come a point when the commission will look at the hole and want to see that “X” has happened. If “X” hasn’t happened, then they will want to see you back here to discuss the status. They want to walk out of this room knowing that something concrete is going to happen. They don’t want you to be unrealistic about it and want y’all to explain to us. Randy Barber– When are we going to start digging? The bottom and then back to the ground. Richard Nina – June 1. 5 months the whole is dug and lower level concrete. November 1. April 1 2016 to grade date. Richard Nina – We have built two projects just like this. One at University of Memphis one downtown Memphis. Commissioner Alexander – Does anyone know the restoration bond amount. Andrea Correll – If these conditions haven’t been met, substantially met, then Substantially exterior as the building was approved in September of 2012. Commissioner Alexander – Would y’all mind coming back on December 1 to give us an update? Richard Nina – Not a problem. Additional Conditions/Timeline:

1. Granting of the extension of time does not adversely affect the public interest.

2. The following construction milestones shall be met:

DRAFT

13

Mobilization/groundbreaking 06/01/2015

Footing/Foundation complete 12/01/2015

Built to grade 03/31/2016 3. Return to the December Planning Commission meeting to give a status report on the project and

document the milestone to date have been met. 4. The exterior of the project as built shall be substantially the same with respect to size and

aesthetics as shown on the exterior elevations submitted to and approved by the Planning

Commission in December 2012.

Commissioner Whittington – Motion to approve the request with the proposed conditions. Commissioner Alexander – 2nd the motion. The motion for approval of the request is approved unanimously by all present.

XXI. Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm.

DRAFT

Documents

City of Oxford Planning Commission April 13, 2015 … · City of Oxford Planning Commission April 13, ... Director of Planning, ... Condition 2) The Tanglewood Homeowners Association