PLANNING COMMISSION. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Harmon.

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Be it remembered that the Oxford Planning Commission did meet in regular session on Monday, December 8, 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. He noted that Case #s 1898, 1913, and 1914 had been postponed. With the noted changes, Commissioner Bradley made a motion to approve the agenda, which was seconded by Commissioner Whittington. All present voting aye, the agenda was approved. 3. Approval of the October 30, 2014 Special Meeting Minutes. Chairman Harmon asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, Chairman Harmon made a motion to accept the October 30, 2014 special meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. All present voting aye, the minutes were approved. 4. Planning and Building Officials Reports. The November 2014 building report was included in the Commissioner s packets. Building Official Randy Barber informed the Commission that one hundred thirty four (134) permits were issued for a valuation of $7.1 million during the month of November 2014 which included Molly Barr Ridge which were projects approved by the Commission. Chairman Harmon made a motion to accept the Building report, which was seconded by Commissioner Bradley. All present voting aye, the building and planning reports were accepted. 5. 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 Uses permitted by special exceptions 8., Section 131. R-E

2 2 Residential Estate Residential District Uses permitted by special exceptions 6, Section 132 R-A Single-Family Residential district Section Uses permitted by special exceptions 7 and Section 133. R-1a Section Uses permitted by special exceptions POSTPONED 6. 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. Planner s Comments: The subject property is located approximately 920 yards from the entrance to Grand Oaks. The site is located near the intersection of Grand Oaks Boulevard and Majestic Oaks Drive where the old club house was located and within the Grand Oaks Planned Unit Development (PUD). As part of the Grand Oaks Master Plan approval for 120 condominium units (14 units per acre) on 8.48 acres (Majestic Oaks) and then in 2006 Case # 1315 a site plan request was approved to downsize the overall density to 80 condominium units on 9.9 acres (8 units per acre). In 2007, Case #1419 was approved by the Planning Commission. This revised site plan for The Mississippian Condominiums was to reduce and re-configure the original building footprints from 8 units to the acre to 8.4 units an acre. The present site plan request is to develop 35 single-family homes as condominiums on individual lots. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for Waterstone - a 35 unit development 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. Commissioner Gray questioned the tree mitigation plan for the site. Mrs. Hourin stated that there were very few trees on the site. Chairman Harmon asked for further comment or questions from the Commission, with none he entertained a motion for Case #1900 Site Plan Approval for Waterstone. Commissioner Whittington made a motion to approve the Site Plan for Waterstone, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Huelse. All present voting aye, the motion passed and the site plan was approved. 7. 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 Planner s Comments: The subject property is located on the northwest side of College Hill Road and measures approximately 8.44 acres and consists of both (RC) Two-Unit Residential and (GB) General Business zoned acreage. Currently existing on the (RC) Two-Unit Residential zoned property is a 12-

3 building apartment complex. The 1.40 acre parcel zoned (GB) General Business is currently undeveloped, vacant land. 3 As stated in the Land Development Code: Section (4) Residential condominium is a permitted use by special exception. The applicant is seeking a special exception to make use of the adjacent property and incorporate the acreage into the proposed residential development. Recommendation: Approve the request for a special exception for residential condominium use in a (GB) General Business zoned district with the following finding: 1. The proposed use shall not be adverse to the public interest. 2. If no permits are issued within 18 month of approval the special exception shall expire. Commissioner Bradley asked about the need for a special exception for storm water variance. Reanna Mayoral stated that yes a special exception was required for a storm water variance. Paul Koshenia stated that he existing property zoned (RC) Multi Unit Residential is where University Arbors site is located. The (GB) General Business land adjacent is currently vacant. Mr. Koshenia informed the Commission that several letters of support had been received from neighboring property owners. Commissioner Bradley questioned the capacity of University Arbors now. Mr. Koshenia stated that University Arbors was on six (6) acres and consisted of ninety six (96) units. The proposed development will be on over eight acres (8.44) and will consist of ninety eight (98) units. The proposed development will flow with the neighborhood and the 800 Park development across the street. Commissioner Gray inquired about the intended market. Mr. Koshenia stated that initially it was for rental but could be sold a condominium units. Commissioner Gray stated that one letter made mention that the development was for active adults who do not want up keep. Also, he questioned if the owners were aware of the intended market. Commissioner Gray asked for the number of current residents and if they had been notified to vacate. Mr. Koshenia stated that the landlord was instructed to notify all residents and they would have approximately sixty (60) days to vacate. Mr. Sid Bryan stated that the current development University Arbors was about 50% or 60% on capacity. Commissioner Bradley questioned the placement of water if a development was built on the property. He stated currently it is designed to function without structures and absorb water like a sponge. Mr. Koshenia stated that building structures would make the water detention situation better. The current structures are blocking the water because they are built in the flood way. The proposed plan is to remove the current structures and replace with structures that will not obstruct the flood way. Commissioner Gray inquired about the number of beds for the proposed development. Mr. Koshenia stated that the development would have three hundred thirty (330) beds. Commissioner Gray asked if a traffic study was required. Mr. Koshenia said no traffic study was required due to the size of the development. Chairman Harmon asked for further questions or comments from the Commission, with none, he entertained a motion for Case #1903. Commissioner Bradley made a motion for approval of Case #1903 with the stated conditions to grant a special exception. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Huesle.

4 All present voting aye, the motion passed and the special exception was granted Public hearing for Case #1904 Variance to the storm water management ordinance for property located at 805 College Hill Road in a (GB) General Business and (RC) Multi-Unit Residential zoned district Planners Comments: The subject property is located on the northwest side of College Hill Road and measures approximately 8.44 acres and consists of both (RC) Two-Unit Residential and (GB) General Business zoned acreage. The property is fairly level throughout and is located in the Davidson Creek floodway. Currently existing on the (RC) Two-Unit Residential zoned property is a 12-building apartment complex. Located in a floodway, the proposal for the property meets all development requirements and the design of the structures improves storm water conditions. The raised buildings occupy less area thereby facilitating rather than prohibiting storm water runoff. However, simple due to the fact that the development is located in a floodway makes it virtually impossible to manage storm water in strict compliance to the storm water ordinance. Section G (Retention/Detention of Facilities in Floodplain) of the Storm water Retention and Detention Ordinance states: If detention storage is provided within a floodplain of a major stream, no storage volume for the facility may be provided below the high water elevations established for the floodplain. The applicant is requesting a variance from the storm water ordinance due to fact that the proposed development is located in the floodway creating a unique hardship not self-imposed. 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 location of the property, staff recommends approval of the variance request from the storm water ordinance with the following conditions: 1. Variance request is for the attached submitted site plan. 2. Approval is contingent on FEMA s agreement with the applicant s No-Rise/No-Impact Certification, which is to be submitted to FEMA by the applicant in the form of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) in accordance with the FEMA document

5 titled Guidance for No-Rise/No-Impact Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways 5 3. 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. 4. Granting of the variance does not release the applicant from any requirements of Chapter 42, nor does it grant any type of variance related to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Commissioner Whittington asked if the development was going to be built up out of the flood zone. Paul Koshenia stated that it would be built four (4 ) feet to five (5 ) feet above flood elevation. Commissioner Whittington and Commissioner Bradley questioned the amount of impervious area if the proposed development was built. Chairman Harmon asked for further questions or comments from the Commission, with none, he entertained a motion for Case #1904. Commissioner Whittington made a motion for approval of Case #1904 with the stated conditions to grant a variance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bishop. All present voting aye, the motion passed and the variance was granted. 9. Public Hearing for Case #1913 Site Plan Approval for The District at MLK comprising 12 units located in 12 buildings containing a total of 48 beds in a residential condominium development zoned RC located in the 300 block of Martin Luther King Dr. and 200 block of N. 6 Street. Underground parking will be provided as shown on the site plan. POSTPONED 10. Public Hearing for Case #1914 Site Plan Approval for The District at 17 th comprising six units located in three buildings containing a total of 24 beds in a residential condominium development zoned RC located in a 200 block of South 17 th Street. Underground parking will be provided as shown on the site plan. POSTPONED 11. Public hearing for Case #1906 Site Plan approval for The Arbors a 98 unit residential development located at 805 College Hill Road in a (GB) General Business and (RC) Multi-Unit Residential zoned district. Planner s Comments: The subject property is located on the northwest side of College Hill Road and measures approximately 8.44 acres and consists of both (RC) Two-Unit Residential and (GB) General Business zoned acreage. The property is fairly level throughout and is located in the Davidson Creek floodway. Currently existing on the (RC) Two-Unit Residential zoned property is a 12-building apartment complex. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to construct a 10-building, 98-unit residential development. Other amenities include a clubhouse, pool, dog park and multiple gathering spaces. The proposed buildings are raised above ground to meet development requirements for properties located in a floodway.

6 6 The applicant met with the site plan review committee on September 24, 2014, October 1, 2014 and October 8, The planning department has received support from 33 people for this development by phone, and petition coming from individual business owners located to the northwest of the property and many residents on Club View Drive to the southeast. Recommendation: Approve the request for site plan for The Arbors a residential development with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the site plan is contingent on approval of the Storm water Variance or an approved storm water plan. 2. Approval is contingent on FEMA s agreement with the applicant s No-Rise/No-Impact Certification, which is to be submitted to FEMA by the applicant in the form of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) in accordance with the FEMA document titled Guidance for No-Rise/No-Impact Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways. 3. 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. 4. Permits of any kind will not be issued prior to FEMA s approval and acceptance of the No-Rise Certification. If the acceptance from FEMA includes a FIRM revision, permits will not be issued prior to the effective date of the FIRM revision issued by FEMA and approval by the Board of Alderman. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The covenants shall include language that the Non-parking areas will be the owner s responsibility to enforce. Commissioner Bradley questioned the relocation of the entrance to the development from the current proposed location. Paul Koshenia stated that it would be moved further to the east from its current location shown. Mr. Joe Ward addressed the Commission and thanked them for raising pedestrian safety issues. He stated that three (3) attractions to draw people would be a park, a bus stop, and commercial/retail.

7 Chairman Harmon asked for further questions or comments from the Commission, with none, he entertained a motion for Case #1906. Commissioner Bradley made a motion for approval of Case #1906 with the stated conditions for The Arbors Site Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alexander. All present voting aye, the motion passed and the variance was granted. 12. Public hearing for Case #1907 Preliminary plat approval for The Heights Phase III, a 47 lot residential subdivision located on property in Lafayette County Planner s Comments: The subject property is located on the south side of Sisk Avenue and south of Phase I & II of The Heights subdivision. It totals approximately 17.5 acres and located in Lafayette County. The land in this area is typical of the Oxford hill country. The topography of the property in this area of Oxford is extreme with steep grades, rolling terrain and mature vegetation throughout. The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval for The Heights, Phase III subdivision. Initially submitted as a 2-phase, 38-lot plat, the applicant will be acquiring additional acreage to the south; in the county and is proposing to develop a total of six phases. Phase III consists of 47-lots and will provide access to the remaining five future phases. Due to the existing conditions of the site and construction requirements for public streets, much of the vegetation will require removal. Efforts will be made to preserve and protect as many trees as possible in the field as work progresses. The applicant has submitted a reforestation plan with 175% future canopy coverage. Additionally, approximately 10% of undisturbed land for each phase will set aside. A Conservation Easement will be dedicated to the (HOA) Homeowners Association and remain undisturbed in perpetuity. The proposed conservation areas in The Heights are contiguous and will ultimately contain approximately 8.6 acres with the ultimate goal of providing a trail system connecting existing conservation areas as well as throughout the future residential areas of Oxford Commons. In addition, the applicant will be seeking approval from the Board of Alderman for city services. The site plan review committee met with the applicant on September 3, 2014 and September 10, The Tree Board met with the applicant on November 21, 2014 and again on December 4, 2014 approving the plan with a number of conditions. Recommendation: Approve the preliminary plat for The Heights, Phase III with the following conditions: 1. No less than 10% or 1.75 acres of the land in Phase III will remain undisturbed as a protected conservation area held in perpetuity by The Heights Home Owners Association. 2. All trees retained outside of the conservation area during construction of the public roads will be protected through (TPZ) Tree Protection Zone measures outlined in the Landscape Ordinance. 3. Applicant will return to the Tree Board for approval of all future phases with comparable or enhanced requirements. 4. No less than five (5) canopy trees in aggregate to be planted with the 48-lots of Phase III. 5. All storm water calculations for the project shall be approved by the City s engineers prior to the issuance of any permits. 7

8 8 6. The total number of occupied residential units for the overall development (560 acres+/-) shall not exceed 893 units until a third access route (1 st being Sisk Ave., 2 nd being the frontage access road along Hwy 7 connecting to Hwy 30) is constructed and the total number of occupied units shall not exceed 1200 until a fourth road is constructed preferably south to University Avenue. The alignment and configuration of said third access route shall be mutually agreeable to the City of Oxford, Oxford Commons Developers and other affected parties. Commissioner Bradley stated that this Phase of the Oxford Commons PUD should follow the same conditions as previously approved phases. He added that the condition limiting the number of houses to be built and receiving Certificate of Occupancies must be in place until additional access points into the development are constructed. Paul Koshenia stated that the property in question is located outside the PUD. Commissioner Bradley said that he was aware but still felt it should have the same conditions as other phases of the PUD. David Blackburn stated that he had no problem with the addition of the condition to limit the number of houses/certificate of occupancies until additional access routes are constructed. Katrina Hourin read a statement from Millie West about all the trees being removed and killed on the site. Cowan Hunter spoke on behalf of the tree board and stated that they were in favor of retaining all of the big trees. Chairman Harmon asked for further questions or comments from the Commission, with none, he entertained a motion for Case #1907. Commissioner Bradley made a motion for approval of Case #1907 with the stated conditions for The Heights Phase III preliminary plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittington. All present voting aye, the motion passed and the preliminary plat was approved. 13. Public Hearing for Case #1912 Request to conditionally zone +/ acres from (CE) Country Estate Residential to (RC) Multi Family Residential. The tract is located in the 100 block of Old Taylor Road (CR 303). Planner s Comments: The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately +/ area from (CE) Country Estate to (MF) Multi-family. The criteria to rezone property are cited in a number of Mississippi cases and are as follows: Mistake: Based on past zoning maps the there is no record of a mistake in the current zoning classification of the subject property. Change: The evidence submitted that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent to justify the rezoning has merit. Need: However, the arguments presented supporting a change in need are not of a physical nature such as a new Hospital or a new road that changes public need. The argument that housing based on increased enrollment has not been proven as a change. 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 but the arguments submitted on the changing neighborhood have merit. See the Land Use Map

9 elow: 9

10 Recommendation: Staff cannot support the request because the need argument that the increase in student population in the Neighborhood at the University of Mississippi has not had legal precedent in Mississippi case law as meeting the standard for public need. Both change and need must be met for the request to be approved. However, I agree as a planning professional with the documented change in neighborhood character. The below conditions are provided should the Planning Commission in their review of the legal brief find that both a change and a need have been met by the applicant. However, to protect the remaining single family homes to the north zoned CE Country Estate the following conditions are recommended. 1. Provide a fifty foot undisturbed tree buffer along all the property lines (to the north) which about property zoned Country Estate. 2. To further protect the character of the rails to trails provide a seventy-five foot undisturbed tree buffer along the west property line. 3. The owner/developer must pay all costs for upgrading the sewer infrastructure if the request is approved. Conditional Uses Permitted: 4. Multi-Family Unit residential (with no more than 4 bedrooms per unit) 5. Accessory Use or structure, as defined in Section 117 Uses Permitted by Special Exception: 6. Public facilities and/or utility facilities necessary to provide service to the surrounding area, or to the entire municipality CASE # 1912 WAS RECORDED BY KAREN C. REID-EDGE, MS CCR 1276, POST OFFICE BOX 1683, OXFORD, MS A TRANSCRIPT OF HER RECORDING IS INCLUDED IN THESE MINUTES. 10

11 11 1 BY MR. HARMON: The Commission calls Case No BY MR. BRADLEY: Can I ask you one thing? I have here a 3 copy of the Oxford Eagle, Friday November 21, and it has the 4 publication of the notice about this matter. And it identifies 5 the property, I'm reading it, in the 100-block of Old Taylor 6 Road, (CR 303.) And that's the only identification of the 7 property. And what I want to know is whether that is a 8 satisfactory publication of identity before a rezoning matter 9 can go forward. Says the 100 block of Old Taylor Road. 10 BY MS. CORRELL: The lady's house is at 101. There's more 11 acreage involved. It's acres, which was culled out. It 12 was said the 100 block because the acreage was never given an 13 address. So the acreage is correct. And then the block range 14 was given on other cases such as the recent 18th Street trailer 15 park. So when you have development that is more than just the 16 home or just one site, we usually put the block because Public 17 Works does not address until the development occurs. So that's 18 the way we handle it, but the acreage is correct. 19 BY MR. BRADLEY: So there is something there that says Old Taylor Road? 21 BY MS. CORRELL: Right. The lady -- the couples, the 22 Comers, who submitted the application lived at BY MR. BRADLEY: Okay. Thank you. 24 BY MS. CORRELL: The property requested is for additional 25 rezoning for acres, plus or minus, from Country Estate

12 12 1 Residential to RC, Multi-Family Residential. As was discussed, 2 the tract is located in the 100 block of Old Taylor Road, also 3 known as County Road 303. South of the proposed property is 4 the Faulkner Flats development, which was developed as a PUD 5 and remaining Country Estates is located north of this 6 property. The applicant -- let's see. East of the property is 7 properties zoned multi-family and then west is property in 8 Lafayette County, which is not zoned. The zoning of the 9 subject property was established in 2007 when it was annexed 10 into the City and zoned CE, Country Estate. The applicant is 11 requesting to rezone acres from CE, country estate, to 12 MF, multi-family. The criteria for rezoning as cited in a 13 number of Mississippi cases are as follows. Was there a 14 mistake made? Based on the past zoning maps, there is no 15 record of a mistake on the current zoning classification of the 16 subject property. Mr. Trout submitted a large legal brief 17 which each one of you received with case law and other criteria 18 why a change should be given. The evidence submitted proves 19 that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an 20 extent as to justify the rezoning having merit. The problem I 21 have is with the need criteria. We are supposed to have to 22 have change and need, and the arguments representing support of 23 the in need are not of a physical nature, such as the new 24 hospital or the new road which, you know, we worked with in the 25 past as having existing case law on that kind of change. But

13 13 1 the argument is that housing based on enrollment and on the 2 City's comprehensive plan and population as a whole is to be a 3 proven change. I have put in with the Comprehensive Planning 4 Map, Future Land Use Map, as you see it still represents this 5 property as residential. The staff cannot support the request 6 because the need argument, an increase in student population in 7 the neighborhood and at the University of Mississippi has not 8 had a legal precedent in Mississippi case law as meeting the 9 standard for public need. But change in need must be met for 10 the request to be approved. However, I agree, as a planning 11 professional, there's a documented change in neighborhood. So 12 I have supplied below conditions that are provided should the 13 Planning Commission in their review of the legal brief find 14 that both the change and the need are met by the applicant. 15 And I was very concerned about the character of the Country 16 Estate subdivision to the north so the first zoning condition 17 is to provide a 50-foot undisturbed tree buffer along the 18 property line to the north which abuts properties owned in 19 Country Estate. To further protect the character of the 20 residence trails to the west, provide a 75-foot undisturbed 21 tree buffer along the west property line. The owner/developer 22 must pay all costs for upgrading the sewer infrastructure if 23 the request is approved. That area of our system is at 24 capacity. The conditions submitted by the applicant are, 25 No. 4, multi-family unit residential with no more than four

14 14 1 bedrooms per unit and allowing accessory structures as needed 2 for Section 117. Also, as a special exception should a public 3 facility or a utility facility be necessary for service to the 4 area. Thank you. 5 BY MR. TROUT: May it please the Commission, my name is 6 Clark Trout, and I represent the applicants in this case. 7 There are two sets of applicants, the current landowners 8 Braxton and Sandy Comer, and the development company has an 9 option to buy the property. I think -- first things first, 10 this map is kind of large and it may not work well. Let's see 11 I'm not sure how all this works. Let me figure out where we 12 are. 13 (Technician positions map on projector.) 14 BY MR. TROUT: The property we are dealing with is roughly 15 right in this area. And so the Comers' home area is in here. 16 And so today we are charged with proving beyond clear and 17 convincing evidence that there's been a change in character to 18 the neighborhood and there's a public need to rezone to 19 multi-family zoning. I guess, before I get started into my 20 arguments, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Clark 21 Trout. I'm an attorney here in town. My father, Thomas R. 22 Trout, is my law partner, and he is going to help me today in 23 presenting this case. We've also got here with us Braxton and 24 Sandy Comer, and we'll have the Commission hear from them as 25 the applicants and also as the current landowners. We've also

15 15 1 got two principals with the development company, Pat Howe and 2 Paul Prector, on the front row here. And during our 3 presentation tonight, you are going to hear from Henry Minor 4 who is with Bob Dalhoff's firm. You are also going to hear 5 from a certified planner with GCR, Incorporated. They have 6 multiple offices, but his office is in New Orleans, and his 7 name is and his name is Matthew Ruffeaux, (sic), on the front 8 row here. And Jeff Williams is also helping as an engineer if 9 we can proceed toward developing the property. Quickly, I 10 think I'd like to call up Pat Howe. He is with the development 11 company. I would just like to say -- and introduce the company 12 to you guys and then we'll go from there. 13 BY MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Trout, you probably don't need to 14 spend much time on change in character of the neighborhood. 15 That is -- I think all of us probably are very familiar with 16 the property and what's around it and Andrea said she thought 17 there was a change, but I think maybe the other things you 18 ought to address. 19 BY MR. HARMON: You got that number of people to speak, 20 kind of keep it three to four minutes, please. 21 BY MR. HOWE: I'll be quick. Thank you Clark. Allow me 22 to introduce ourselves. My name is Patrick Howe. I'm with 23 Strategic Development, and I have a partner with me, Paul 24 Prector. We represent a larger team. Strategic Development is 25 based in Athens, Georgia, and we focus on developing student

16 16 1 and work force house. We are not from Oxford or Mississippi, 2 but we are under contract to purchase the Comers' property in 3 August of this year. Since that time I've had the opportunity 4 to meet with the City on multiple occasions and get familiar 5 with the City and University and we've actually fallen in love 6 with the town and this site. We think this is a perfect 7 infield site to create a new standard in student housing. We 8 just finished a large development in Athens, Georgia, on the 9 campus of the University of Georgia. It's been a great success 10 and we believe we can have the same result with this property. 11 In order to do that, we do need a zoning amendment from Country 12 Estates to Multi-family. We want to partner with the City in 13 creating first class student housing development and raising 14 the bar on all the other developments within the City. We 15 believe this is a sustainable site. It's a beautiful site. It 16 has rolling hills and beautiful mature trees. We are committed 17 to preserving that to the fullest extent possible. We've 18 engaged in that at the outset of the process, and as we hear 19 from our tonight, we've engaged a great local development team 20 to be our partner with the City to bring this to fruition. So 21 we wanted to introduce ourselves. We are fully-integrated real 22 estate firm. We handle it from the start, the planning phases. 23 I have a law degree and also a planning Master's degree. We 24 handle the construction. We participate in third party 25 management. So we are here from the beginning and not going

17 17 1 anywhere. You will be dealing with our team throughout the 2 entire process, and I want to make that clear so we have 3 understanding and trust from the outset. We are happy to 4 answer any questions, but I want turn it back over to Mr. Trout 5 to can take us through the brief and focus on the need 6 argument, which is really the critical issue in this case. 7 Thank you. 8 BY MR. CLARK: Quickly, and I know that we are charged 9 today with proving to you guys beyond clear and convincing 10 evidence of a change in character of the neighborhood and 11 public need, but I know that's abstract in many respects. And 12 we'd like for you to all to see what the conceptual plan 13 consists of now, even though it's not an essential element to 14 the question before the Commission this evening, and show you 15 all quickly what the conceptual plan looks like at this time. 16 At this time, I'd like to call Henry Minor. 17 BY MR. MINOR: Thank you, Clark. Again, my name is Henry 18 Minor. I'm with Dalhoff Thomas Design. I want to first state 19 that the plan you are seeing here has not been through site 20 plan review. This is simply a conceptual image of the what the 21 developers would intend the property to look like, how it would 22 be developed if the property is rezoned. When we first met 23 with Pat and Paul on this project, the thing they said 24 initially is we want to create a unique development that 25 preserves as much open space and existing trees as possible,

18 18 1 packed with amenities. So the way we were able to do that was 2 limiting the number of units. For this property under RC 3 zoning it would be allowed approximately 420 units. What you 4 see here is roughly 215 units, so about half of what is 5 allowed. And so the brown rectangles on that site plan there, 6 those represent the building units and we were able to orient 7 them in a way that creates these small pods with common green 8 space in between. It also allowed for a pedestrian network of 9 trails and sidewalks to kind of connect the entire development 10 back to some of the amenities, such as a clubhouse with indoor/ 11 outdoor recreation, outdoor fitness area. They are also 12 proposing a new public transit stop within the development and 13 then also a bike share program with connections to -- the 14 University of Mississippi walking trail borders the site on the 15 west and we would have two potential trail connections that 16 would allow the users, the people living in this development, 17 access to that trail network and then also implementing a bike 18 share program would give the residents the ability to rent 19 those bikes and take them to campus. So, really, a unique 20 product here. We were allowed to put this in preserving lots 21 of trees, maintaining the buffers that Andrea mentioned in the 22 conditions beforehand. So if anyone has any questions about 23 the plan. 24 BY MR. BRADLEY: How tall would a building be. 25 BY MR. MINOR: A three-story maximum on the buildings.

19 19 1 BY MR. BRADLEY: And one way in and one way out? 2 BY MR. MINOR: We would actually have the two access 3 points. One would be on Old Taylor and the other would be on 4 County Road 356 there to the north. 5 BY MS. CORRELL: We haven't gotten into that much detail, 6 Mr. Bradley, because it's not really site specific. There's 7 some roads and some other things we will have to look at in the 8 site plan. 9 BY MR. WATKINS: In fact, it looks -- and I don't think 10 Public Works has had time to vet this fully, but it's generally on the other side of the road, like a connection across 12 might be part of the City's major thoroughfare plan. So there 13 may be further consideration there because back in '04, I think 14 we had planned it would be one of our southern connector roads 15 that would come up around the Highway 6 areas. There's a line 16 on the map somewhere is what I'm saying. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: County Road 300? 18 BY MR. WATKINS: No, not the County Road 300 connection we 19 were talking about that -- that would go from old Taylor over 20 to Lamar, but this would be a connection that would go up in a 21 northerly direction and come up to meet Highway 6 around the 22 area where -- like where the welding place is. 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That may be in our overall 24 transportation plan, but it's not eminent at all. 25 BY MR. WATKINS: No, no, no. Not imminent at all. I'm

20 20 1 not committing y'all to build a road. Reanna mentioned to me 2 that is something that they noticed this afternoon that they 3 hadn't had a chance to fully look at yet. So that's another 4 road consideration. 5 BY MR. BISHOP: So how many -- there's 215 units 6 approximately -- the occupancy per unit? 7 BY MR. MINOR: It would be a maximum of four beds per 8 unit. Some could be less, but maximum of four. 9 BY MR. BRADLEY: So you think how many people then might 10 live there? It's just a matter of arithmetic. How does that 11 turn out? 12 BY MR. MINOR: It was the maximum for four bedrooms per 13 unit. I guess 860 would be the maximum number of people. 14 BY MR. BRADLEY: And you have one way out on College Hill 15 Road and then you have another way proposed on this 16 County Road 356, which is really BY MR. MINOR: Old Taylor Road would be the main access 18 point and the other access point would be County Road BY MS. MAYORAL: I'm just going to point out again, they 20 are speaking as if a site plan has been presented to you 21 tonight, giving you a lot of specific information what they are 22 building, but we've not seen -- I saw this when I got my 23 packet. Public Works has not approved anything with this as 24 far as access, as far as traffic, anything. The only thing 25 when the rezoning came up is because it was going to RC, we

21 21 1 looked at the number from RC because we can serve the current 2 zone -- if all the houses that could go in that current zoning, 3 we could provide their sewer service, but if this is rezoned we 4 can't meet the need. We can't provide service with our current 5 infrastructure. And we want you to be aware. So that's as 6 in-depth as we had gotten because it's a rezoning case so we 7 want to be clear we are not signing off, and as Paul mentioned, 8 our transportation plan shows a road in that general area. 9 BY MR. BRADLEY: So you are not in a position to provide 10 water and sewer. 11 BY MS. MAYORAL: We have water, but our sewer lines out 12 there are at capacity. 13 BY MR. BRADLEY: So you are not in position to take on new 14 customers of this magnitude. 15 BY MS. MAYORAL: Well, no, sir, not without them providing 16 the upgrades. 17 BY MR. CLARK: Right. And I would just like to say, we 18 wanted you guys to know what we were working toward. This 19 conceptual plan, I don't know how many hours has been sent by 20 Henry and Bob developing these, but I'm going to suspect very 21 few. It's been done quickly and we wanted you all to know what 22 we are headed toward, but, again, tonight's issue is whenever 23 we can prove there's been a change in character to the 24 neighborhood and whether or not we can prove that there's a 25 public need for the multi-family housing. And, frankly, after

22 22 1 that, I don't think it's a legitimate concern under the case 2 law whether or not the infrastructure can meet those needs. 3 You can pass that down to the applicants, the development 4 company and require that they meet those needs during the 5 building process, but the only question is is there a change in 6 character and is there a public need for more multi-family 7 housing in Oxford, Mississippi. And we are prepared to prove 8 that today if you would like me to move forward. 9 BY MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I hate to butt 10 in, but I have to disagree with Clark, that it can't be a 11 consideration in y'all's deliberations what the state of the 12 Public Works are. I mean, if you are talking about an area 13 where it's zoned Country Estate, essentially one unit per 14 acres, going to a district that would accommodate up to units per acre, I think what the existing infrastructure and 16 plans for future infrastructure is certainly could be a 17 relevant concern as to whether or not a considerable rezone is 18 warranted. I'm not trying to push you one way or another. You 19 can decide BY MR. GRAY: Hold on. Let me ask y'all a quick question. 21 You mentioned consideration of the future infrastructure. As 22 the City kind of continues to annex pieces here and there, is 23 that something, as well, is that a consideration that we should 24 look at because I think, yes, you know, you look north of this 25 proposed spot, you get a lot of RC student housing going. If

23 23 1 you look south of this spot, you still have a lot of 2 single-family residential. Is that something as well to 3 consider to think about, what a neighborhood would look like? 4 BY MS. CORRELL: I think what the point is that your 5 condition provides for them to add infrastructure. As you look 6 at the change, I looked at his case law and I found that the 7 previous rezonings that were approved along Old Taylor Road had 8 changed the character of the immediate neighborhood. And I 9 think overall, you know, Dr. Bradley and others applied that 10 they concurred so the change in the neighborhood I think is 11 easily documented by the annexations and the zonings and the 12 PUDs, but the change in need Mr. Trout was going to further 13 document with you tonight. 14 BY MR. GRAY: I think the change in the neighborhood 15 north, you know, definitely and what is the neighborhood as 16 well? Is the neighborhood defined by a city limit? 17 BY MS. CORRELL: I think that -- yes. 18 BY MR. GRAY: As we go south from there, you know BY MS. CORRELL: But you do have Faulkner Flats adjacent 20 to this property. 21 BY MR. GRAY: That's correct. And we have a lot of 22 residential homes as well. I guess that's kind of my question. 23 BY MS. CORRELL: I'm sorry, but I don't feel when it's 24 outside of our jurisdiction it's our bailiwick, and that's just 25 been my experience in the last couple of decades, you know.

24 24 1 And especially with Lafayette County not being zoned. 2 BY MR. GRAY: That was actually my final question. And 3 there -- haven't they begun that process to look at -- 4 BY MS. CORRELL: They are looking at building inspection. 5 BY MR. WATKINS: Y'all call your supervisor about that. 6 BY MS. CORRELL: So, I mean, I had to go in other states 7 to define what a neighborhood is and you really need to look 8 close, be close. 9 BY MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Trout, the fact that the City does 10 not have the ability to provide sewer for sure, does not that 11 not say the City's already decided there's no public need for 12 RC in this area? 13 BY MR. CLARK: I'm sorry? 14 BY MR. BRADLEY: Does that not say that the City has 15 already decided there's no public need for RC in this area? If 16 there were need for it, the City presumably would have supplied 17 utilities. 18 BY MR. CLARK: Well, that goes along with the change in 19 character. The reason the sewer is in the shape it is is 20 because the City has basically made the Old Taylor Road 21 corridor the student housing corridor. Now, I do know that 22 from speaking to the City engineer that it's been commonplace 23 with the previous developments along that corridor to put in 24 sewer systems that would accommodate whatever they propose to 25 locate there in the way of student housing or multi-family

25 25 1 housing. And I know that my clients and I have discussed that 2 at length, and they are prepared to do whatever it takes in 3 order to meet that need. 4 BY MR. BRADLEY: What does that mean, they are prepared to 5 do whatever it takes? 6 BY MR. CLARK: Whatever it takes with regard to the 7 infrastructure upgrades necessary to fix -- 8 BY MR. BRADLEY: Does that mean to pay for it? 9 BY MR. CLARK: Yes. Yes. 10 BY MR. BRADLEY: So they are prepared to pay for it? 11 BY MR. TROUT: Yes, sir. 12 BY MR. HOWE: This is a concern of ours as well as the 13 City's, but we are just not to that point yet. The City 14 believes that there's not sufficient capacity for water, sewer, 15 et cetera, but we haven't fully vetted that. We don't have 16 that information. We haven't provided the City with our full 17 building plan so we are just not there yet. If we run into a 18 road block a month or two from now, so be it, but at this 19 stage, we are simply looking at the zoning, the character and 20 the need, and then we'll move to the site plan process, the 21 public utility process, et cetera, and we have funded, 22 personally funded with our own funds, utility as needed to 23 execute our building plan. So I can't affirmatively say yes, 24 the number the City provides that if you want to do this, it 25 will cost this and you have to pay for it. I can't

26 26 1 affirmatively say the project will move forward. However, we 2 are prepared to pay for it if we can fit it in the budge3t, and 3 that's what's holding us up. And once we have all the facts on 4 the table as to what we can build and the capacity and the 5 numbers and layout and -- all of that fits into play here and 6 the City gives us a number, we will absolutely be willing to 7 consider paying for it and if that's what's needed to move this 8 forward, that will be a decision we'll make at this time and we 9 are pursuing down the path at that assumption 10 BY MR. GRAY: And I hate to put you on the spot again. If 11 we are using the City lines to separate county and city and 12 saying we don't need to use what is currently in the county to 13 drive our decision within the City, should we be using what is 14 occurring at the University to drive our decisions in the City 15 in terms of a zoning or rezoning like this? 16 BY MS. CORRELL: The University is a state institution, 17 but it's in the middle of our jurisdiction. Parts of the 18 University are zoned because they've gone off campus and it's 19 gotten so big. When you heard the telecommunication tower and 20 the intramural field, it was zoned in the City. The core of 21 the University is not zoned because it's a state institution. 22 BY MR. GRAY: I guess what I'm saying, it's not so much 23 the zoning, but the decisions, you know, so we don't --- we 24 don't look at the county when making a decision about the City. 25 BY MS. CORRELL: I said you did not look at the

27 27 1 neighborhood development and the neighboring case law because 2 the county is not zoned, and in my experience as a planner, 3 you have to go as tight, as close, as possible with defending a 4 neighborhood and character change. 5 BY MR. CLARK: Mr. Gray, also, to that question -- and I 6 appreciate the question. The increase in enrollment and the 7 increase in faculty and staff is just a very minor portion of 8 our argument with regard to increased population. The most 9 important argument is the fact that Oxford has basically 10 doubled in its population in the last decade or so. And if you 11 will look in our application, we talk about population growth. 12 Oxford 2000, 11,756 residents in , 20,865. It's 13 projected in 2019 to be 22,664. So the change in public need 14 is the doubling of the population of the City of Oxford. In 15 conjunction with that increase in population, to a much lesser 16 extent, is the increased enrollment in the University and also 17 the increased faculty and staff needs that flow hand in hand 18 with the increased enrollment. 19 BY MR. GRAY: If the growth of Oxford, as you are saying, 20 has grown is going to outpace the growth of the University, 21 that's what you were saying with the population just now -- is 22 that what you're saying, the population of Oxford and the 23 projections, that was going to outpace the growth of the 24 University for the students? 25 BY MR. CLARK: I'm not really comparing the two. I just