City of Oxford Planning Commission
January 12, 2015
SUMMARY MEETING MINUTES
I.
Meeting called to order at 5:00pm
Chairman Michael Harmon calls the meeting to order.
Planning Commission:
Staff:
Darryail Whittington
Duncan Gray
Watt Bishop
Mark Huelse
Hayden Alexander
Michael Harmon (chairman)
John Bradley
Andrea Correll, Director of Planning
Katrina Hourin, Senior Planner
Ben Requet, Planning Administrator
II.
Advisory Member:
Reanna Mayoral, Assistant City Engineer
Legal Counsel:
Paul Watkins, City Attorney
Review and Approval of Agenda
Chairman Harmon informs the committee that Cases 1916 & 1917 are tabled and that Case 1898 is
moved to the last item of business on the agenda. Andrea Correll informed the commissioners that
minutes were not available for this meeting but would be included for the next meeting.
 Motion to approve. Motion carries unanimously
III.
Review and Approval of Minutes from November 14, 2014 & December 8, 2014 Meetings
The minutes from the November 14, 2014 & December 8, 2014 meetings will be provided for review and
approval at the February 9, 2015 meeting.
III.
The Planning and Building Official Report
Director of Planning Andrea Correll informs the Commission that there is nothing to add to the Planning
and Building report.
 Motion to approve the Planning and Building Official Report. Motion carries unanimously.
IV.
Case# 1919 – Special Exception for a Home Occupation for Suzanne LaCrosse Owner, Angel
Taxi Located at 336 Tanner Drive
Planner’s Comments: The subject property is located off of Tanner Drive in the South Oaks Subdivision.
This case is being heard at the request of code enforcement, after the second time the applicant
appeared before Judge Little for violating the home occupation ordinance, he made it a condition that
1
Ms. LaCrosse apply for a home occupation permit within 45 days. Please find attached the court
documents.
The applicant is requesting a special exception to answer phones and send emails to dispatch for her
company, Angel Taxi. Ms. LaCrosse has agreed to not having taxis or limousines in the neighborhood.
If Ms. LaCrosse’s personal vehicle is a limousine it is staff’s concern that she cannot meet the
requirements of Section 156.01 nor the definition of Home Occupation below:
117.92 Home occupation: Any occupation or profession carried on by a family residing on the premises
which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit, which does not change the
character thereof, and which is conducted entirely within the main or accessory buildings. See home
occupation regulations, section 156
Sec. 156. Home occupation.
156.01 Regulations. Home occupations, permitted in any A, C-E, R-E, R-A, R-1A, R-B, or R-C District shall
be allowed only as a special exception and must meet the following limitations:
1.
A certificate of zoning compliance is required.
2.
Home occupations shall not be carried out in more than 25 percent of the total dwelling building
area, not to exceed 500 square feet.
3.
There shall be no external evidence of the use except that one sign a maximum of one square
foot in size shall be permitted.
4.
No goods or merchandise shall be sold or offered for sale on the premises, which are not
produced on the premises.
5.
Certificate of zoning compliance may be terminated by the Oxford planning commission after
due notice and public hearing thereon.
6.
There shall be no employment of help other than members of the resident family.
7.
The use shall not generate pedestrian or vehicular traffic beyond that reasonable to the district.
8.
There shall be no use of utilities or community facilities beyond that reasonable to the use of the
property for residential purposes.
9.
Commercial vehicles used in conjunction with a home occupation shall be parked behind the front
building line of the principal structure.
10. The following uses by the nature of the investment or operation have a pronounced tendency
once started to rapidly increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations and thereby
impair the use and value of a residentially zoned area for residence purposes. Therefore, the uses
specified below shall not be permitted as home occupations:
a.
Minor or major auto repair.
b.
Barber shop.
c.
Beauty parlors.
d.
Carpentry work.
2
e.
Dance instruction.
f.
Dental offices.
g.
Massage parlors.
h.
Medical offices.
i.
Painting of vehicles, trailers, or boats.
j.
Photo studios or processing.
k.
Private schools with organized classes.
l.
Small engine repairs.
m. Television repair.
n.
Upholstering.
o.
Welding shops.
p.
Other similar uses.
q.
Reserved.
r.
Reserved.
11. The following list of uses may be considered home occupations if, after being reviewed by the
planning commission, it is determined that the operation of the use will not have an adverse
effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
a.
Bed and breakfast (Permitted as a special exception in the R-B Two-Unit Residential District
and R-C Multi-Unit Residential District).
b.
Consulting services.
c.
Contracting.
d.
Dental technician with laboratory.
e.
Drafting and graphic service.
f.
Gardening, landscape maintenance.
g.
Home crafts (including ceramics with kiln up to six cubic feet).
h.
Housing cleaning service.
i.
Jewelry, jewelry manufacture.
j.
Laundry, ironing service.
k.
Swimming pool cleaning.
l.
Reserved.
Ms. LaCrosse was taken to court by the City to stop operating Angel Taxi in a residential zoning
district. There are no letters of support to date from the neighborhood in this case so the Board may
need to consider not approving the request. Should the request for a special exception be denied,
Ms. LaCrosse would be required to move her business to a location appropriately zoned for her
business.
3
The other issues included that must be addressed are having non-family members including a boarder
that is a taxi driver who parks his vehicle at the home. There are also two limousines currently stored at
the home.
If there were not multiple violations of the Ordinance in this case the Board could consider a
probationary period.
Recommendation: Please find below conditions that may be used should you find that a probationary
home occupation is suitable in this case:
1. The special exception shall be granted for only dispatch of Angel Taxi from the address in no more
than 500 square feet of the heated floor area of the home.
a. No taxi or limousine shall be stored or be on the premises at 336 Tanner Drive.
b. No employees of Angel Taxi shall drive taxis to the home or be at the home for any
business related reason.
c. No employees accept family members shall reside or work from the home.
d. No borders of any kind shall live in the home. The property is zoning Residential Estate
and the use is for a single family home.
2. Granting of the special exception will not adversely affect the public interest.
a. Because of previous conflicts with the neighborhood while operating Angel taxi from
this home, staff believes that additional conditions are needed:
i. Limiting the home occupation for six months probationary period expiring on
June 8, 2015 when Ms. LaCrosse will have to stand before the Board for the
probationary period to be lifted or the home occupation permit revoked.
ii. Ms. LaCrosse may return to the Planning Commission in June to renew her
permit with no limitation if Ms. LaCrosse upholds the conditions of the permit
listed above. However, at any time during the six month period if code
enforcement officer Johnny Sossaman and the Planning staff find that the
applicant has violated the conditions of the home occupation permit, a hearing
will be held before the Board of Adjustment to revoke the special exception for
the home occupation.
iii. If the conditions are not met, the Planning Commission may revoke the home
occupation and Ms. LaCrosse must operate her business in a business zoning
district in the City of Oxford and will no longer be allowed to dispatch or have a
home occupation at 335 Tanner drive.
4

Director of Planning Andrea Correll – this case was brought before the Commission at the
request of the code enforcement officer after the second time the applicant appeared before
Judge Little for violating the Home Occupation Ordinance. A condition was made that Ms.
LaCrosse apply for a Home Occupation permit within 45 days. There are concerns in the report
and I have written so that you can approve it with conditions or deny the request depending on
what you here tonight. Ms. LaCrosse is here tonight to tell you about her business and what she
would like to do and you do have one letter from a neighbor in opposition. I would be glad to
answer questions about the process or Officer Sossaman would be glad to answer questions.

Chairman Harmon – There is some information that I have that this request may violate the
restrictive covenants and protective covenants for that subdivision. Do you have any
information on that?
o Andrea Correll – I do not have knowledge of that for South Oaks but it is the intent of
the ordinance that it does not disturb the neighborhood and that the Home Occupation
does not generate traffic or any other conflicts that have been occurring in this
neighborhood. So, I feel like Miss LaCrosse could meet the requirements of her
application of having a paper office in her home to dispatch and email her drivers, then
it might be possible. The neighborhood has been upset throughout this process with
taxis coming to the home. So, let Ms. LaCrosse address what is going on and what her
stand on this and then Johnny and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
Ms. LaCrosse – She is correct, I did receive a ticket on September 11. I bought my home in 2003
and started Angel Taxi in November 2004 with a privilege license. I lived in the county but didn’t
have to deal with these covenants. I have noticed that I have moved all cabs including the one
who was in my home and staying with me in a separate bedroom thinking that this may calm all
of this down and that has moved off. All I have left is my personal property and a desk. All I am
asking for is to send emails and answer phones.

I am not asking to bring a cab back to my home; in fact, I have prohibited all of my drivers from
even coming into the neighborhood. I don’t even call for a taxi anymore; I walk to the end of the
street if I hail a cab. That’s a shame because I didn’t do this for any other reason that the hold up
this community and help it. Cause I saw a need for it and it has been pretty successful for seven
years in a row, I have been nominated and won the best of Oxford. I am not sure I need to stir
my neighbors. I get it I want peace too.
I even had one of my neighbors come to my house and warn me about the letter he sent but
that was about the taxis coming and going. I explained to him that I am just asking to keep my
desk in my home, answer phones and send out emails i.e. a paper office. I even go to a
restaurant once a week to do payroll. That is all I need to do. I don’t really need an office to
write a paycheck. So, my staff and I go out to eat once a week. I have no problems keeping it this
way, if my neighbors will agree. It will be quiet, I like it that way too.
Showing Pictures - As you can see, that picture is from my house decorate for Christmas. I am
not out to hurt any one. I have more pictures. This is my neighbor having a luncheon the night
before I got these tickets. I had a dinner party. Here are some of my friends who also are taxi
drivers and don’t have personal vehicles and parked at my house and thus the tickets. That is
5










the view from my front porch. You can’t even see cars in my driveway. They are all out of line of
sight. That’s my personal vehicle.
Andrea Correll – I guess one of the concerns we had originally was that you had limousines but
you don’t have limousines at your house anymore?
o Ms. LaCrosse - I have one, it is a six seater. It is very small and looks like a Lincoln Town
car. Could you tell in the picture earlier in my driveway?
o Andrea Correll – But is it for hire?
o Ms. Lacrosse – Yes, but it has only moved four times in six months.
Andrea Correll – In the staff analysis that you have received, you have choices. You have
conditions on a probationary period under these standards or you have a denial. I think Ms.
LaCrosse would appreciate the probationary period if you would consider it.
Ms. Lacrosse - Six months, see how it goes and ask the neighbors again. I am very willing.
Andrea Correll – You do have the letter from one neighbor I think you need to see if they are
here tonight and if they would like to speak.
Chairman Harmon - Before we get to the audience, are there any questions coming from the
committee first?
Commissioner Gray – Ms. Lacrosse, did you receive another ticket in December?
o Ms. Lacrosse – No. It was unfounded because I was putting in a new floor in my house.
Those were contractors ripping out the old floor and preparing my house to put in a
new floor.
o Code Enforcement Officer Johnny Sossaman – She received two citations. She went to
court the first time and she received a second citation during that same period.
 Ms. LaCrosse - The same day sir.
o Johnny Sossaman – Judge Little tabled those and gave her until December to hear the
case to try to clear up the information. She came back in December for a trial date and
at that trial, she was found guilty of operating a business from her home and violating
the Home Occupation Ordinance. At that time, we gave her 45 days to clear it up by
getting special permission from the planning department or to move her business
address before suspension of her privilege license.
o Ms. LaCrosse – If I move my business, it will be to Batesville. I already have something in
the plans.
o Commissioner Gray – So there were two citations?
o Johnny Sossaman – The judge took away one and only found her guilty of one. He left it
on Code Enforcement to follow-up.
Johnny Sossaman – The original date, that we were first notified, I was not the code
enforcement officer. Captain Jason King was then the Code Enforcement Officer. The original
date of the first complaint was 11/2013 where he sent a certified letter and she responded. In
her response, she spoke with Captain King and she told him at that time that she had moved her
business from the home and was in compliance with City Code.
Ms. LaCrosse – I moved all the cabs off of the property, which is what they asked me.
Commissioner Gray - But then the cabs came back on the property?
o Ms. LaCrosse – Just one.
Officer Sossaman - I have photos, complaints sent from the neighbors on many different
occasions. On that particular photo, there are four different taxis on the property.
o Ms. LaCrosse – They were putting camera systems in the taxis to be compliant.
o Officer Sossaman – And you were told that you could not have the taxis on the property.
o Ms. LaCrosse - And I moved them.
6
Pictures Shown
 Commissioner Gray – So there was a certified letter November 2013 and then a citation
September 2014. There were actually two citations and then November 2014 taxis were again
on the premises.
 Commissioner Whittington – Are those separate photographs, are they dated?
o Officer Sossaman – All of the emails are dated. Some of them state the date in the
email.
 Ms. LaCrosse – I used to drive a taxi. Aren’t you allowed to park your work vehicle in your
driveway?
Officer Sossaman reads aloud the dates of the pictures.


Commissioner Gray – These are all images after the citations that have been written.
Paul Watson – Mr. Chairman, if I could, I want to make sure don’t feel like you need to get
bogged down in something that you don’t need to get bogged down in. What has happened
with in the past in the violations that have gone through code enforcement and gone through
City court? The Municipal Court adjudicated that and the verdict is guilty for that. You are
certainly welcome to look at the pictures and take that into consideration but you don’t have to
feel like you in position where you have to adjudicate what has happened in the past because
that was already done.
 Commissioner Gray – I am just trying to understand if this is a series of singular event or if this is
a pattern.
 Ms. LaCrosse – All I am asking for is grace for 6 months, it will be quiet and not one cab is
allowed to come to my house. Since December 17, have you received any emails? Since I was
fined $500 the week before Christmas, have you received any complaints?
o Officer Sossaman - I have received no complaints. The only communication was from
one complainant and I advised them of what happened in court. The only vehicles that
have parked there the one that you drive and the limousine.
 Chairman Harmon – Are there any other questions from the commission? If there are members
from the audience that would like to speak, please come forward.
Tommy Wilson (342 Tanner Dr.)
 Chairman Harmon – Would you, in particular, let us know not what has happened in the past
because I think we have already heard what has happened in the past but would you let us
know what your response is as a resident to Ms. LaCrosses’s statement that if she is allowed to
operate on probation, she would in fact clean up the act and only have an office.
 Tommy Wilson – In my opinion, because I have lived next to her and have witnessed this going
on for years, that we go through this about every 6 months prior to having a code enforcement
officer. I don’t think another six months would change anything. She has proven that she can do
anything for a few months and then she goes right back. One of the pictures she showed with a
van in her driveway, that’s not even her house. I’ve also brought some pictures that were not
shown in the evidence that I would like you to see. This will show you that this is more than just
one or two in her driveway.
 Images submitted to the commission.
 Ms. LaCrosse – We were fixing cameras to be compliant with the new city taxi
law.
 Tommy Wilson – I don’t see any evidence. When I was a past President of the Neighborhood
Association, she agreed to move the cabs. 6 months later, we were right back. If I felt like we
7
could believe what she is saying, I wouldn’t be here publicly. But I don’t like coming home to
cabs everyday and seeing people walking down the street and I don’t know who they are.
Shane Denniman (341 Tanner Dr.)
 Shane Denniman – I serve as President of the Homeowners Association. I would just like the
people who are here that oppose this, the homeowners, to please raise your hands. Sir, that
speaks for itself of the nuisance that this has caused the neighborhood.
Shirley Perry (1528 South Oaks)
 Shirley Perry – I want to draw your attention to the fact that this is a violation of our covenants
that are registered with the state department in Mississippi. This is in violation and there should
be no businesses in South Oaks. This is a pure violation of what we all agreed to. I think you have
to abide by the law that represents. If we don’t abide by our covenants, why do we have
covenants?
 Commissioner Bradley – Let me ask you this, I was handed what I think is a copy of the
protective covenants and it says at one point that all lots shall be used solely for residential
purposes. Do you think there is another place that says “no business activities shall be carried
on” or is it included within that all lots shall be used solely for residential purposes.
 Shirley Perry – I think that covers it, sir.
 Commissioner Bradley – So there could be a difference between business activities being
conducted there as obviously has occurred and simply maintaining an office for office work
without any activities.
 Shirley Perry - I think business activities are an overall condition that will be agreed on. We just
can’t have businesses around that disturb neighbors.
 Commissioner Bradley – We understand that and what I am getting at and perhaps the
gentleman that is the President of the Neighborhood Association could tell me as well, is there
anything else in the covenants other than this statement that says all lots should be used solely
for residential purposes? Is there any other thing that prohibits an office operating out of the
house? Do any of you know that?
 Shirley Perry – I think that statement is very clear. It includes any businesses and I don’t know
why we would spell out the businesses that you don’t want in there when you don’t want any
businesses at all. I think this is a violation of the covenants. It is disturbing, a danger to children.
If the covenants do not serve their purpose then why have them?
 Commissioner Bradley - I agree with you totally but what has been described to us as having
gone on in the past and the judgment made by the city court judge, seems clearly to say that a
violation of both of the ordinances and the covenants. What I am asking you is whether an office
maintained in the house without any taxis business work, taxis business activities or taxis
business operations, other than an office would also offend the covenants and I don’t know
that.
 Shirley Perry – I would presume not because it is an internal matter within one’s home but this
matter is external to the home and to the community.
 Chairman Harmon – Are there any other questions or comments from the community?
Brandon Smith (147 Peyton Circle)
 Brandon Smith – I saw the concern with the neighborhood and it concerned me too. If the City
rezones this to a business is it solely for that piece of land at that address?
 Andrea Correll – This is not a rezoning. Any ordinance customary Home Occupations are allowed
in residential areas with approval of this board. They are intended for a paper office in the
interior of the home not to exceed 500 square feet.
8

Brandon Smith – That being said, with the activities that Ms. LaCrosse is asking for, why would
we need this hearing? She is simply going to answer emails and dispatch cars. Why are we all
here for this?
o Andrea Correll – Because the ordinance requires a public hearing before the board. So if
there are any conflicts in the neighborhood, they can come out at that time. The
purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that paper offices that do not impact the
neighborhood. We usually receive letters of support prior to considering the case. So in
writing this case, I wrote it two ways: 1) 6 moths probation and 2) for denial. We are
trying to mitigate these conflicts so that we can resolve this issue.
 Brandon Smith – This tells me there is a pandora’s box that we don’t want to open in our
neighborhood. What is going to happen is that when we crack this door open and she does great
for 6 months, when we get beyond that, then what happens? What if Ms. LaCrosse moves this
business that is now somehow tied to this address? The covenants are fairly clear that this
neighborhood is to be used solely for residential purposes. I am all about free business, in this
case and in this area, especially considering the nature of this business bringing in a lot of
different people. This neighborhood is full of children. I think it opens a door for something this
neighborhood doesn’t want, down the road. Are there any questions for me?
 Commissioner Gray – According to this covenant, on street parking is not allowed and that
would pertain to all homeowners.
Jake Todd (335 Tanner Drive)
 Jake Todd – I live right across the street from Sue. I moved in a year ago. I totally understand
that she can’t run a home office out of her house. My only concern with that, there have been
incidents since she did clear taxis off of her property where people are still coming to her house.
Whether or not she clears that up in the future I don’t know but i have photo evidence. My only
concern is if you give her this, her past history has shown that if we give her an inch, there is
past evidence. I spoke with Sue about this and told her I am still concerned that she will still
have employees coming and going. She did say yes, she had employees coming and going for
the sole purpose of avoiding a $500 fine. I want it noted that I do not believe that this business if
allowed to operate out of her house, she has not shown past history to honor that.

V.
Chairman Harmon – I would like to entertain a motion from the commission.
o Commissioner Whittington – I make a motion to deny the request for a home
occupation.
o Commissioner Gray – 2nd
o Motion for denial passed with a unanimous vote of members present; Commissioner
Bishop abstained from the vote.
Case# 1918 – A) Ten-foot, Eight-Inch Side (south) Yard Setback and B) Seven-Foot, Three-Inch
Rear (east) Yard Setback Variance for Property Located at 712 N. 14th Street in a (RA) Single
Family Residential Zoned District
Planner’s Comments: The subject property is an irregular shaped lot located on the east side of North 14th
Street and measuring approximately square 6,665 square feet in area. Currently, existing on the site is a
modest structure which is consistent in size and style of homes in this neighborhood however, the site is
a non-conforming structure as it existed prior to the zoning regulations. The applicant is requesting
Variance A to reduce the setback (9’8”) to 1’-0” of the south property line to construct a new sunroom
over an existing patio.
9
The applicant intends to improve the east section of the structure that is non-conforming by removing
approximately 500 square feet, protecting a 26” heritage water oak and removing an impervious concrete
slab. However, the applicant is requesting Variance B to reduce the setback (7’8”) of the east property
line. We do encourage the applicant to exercise caution while removing the structure so as not to disturb
or disrupt the trees root system.
By granting the requested variances, this non-conforming structure will become compliant with the terms
of the Land Development Code.
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.
New language has been added to the Land Development Code regarding utilities as it pertains to all
developments and substantial improvements.
All developments and substantial improvements including (single family homes, apartment complexes,
shopping centers, professional offices, etc.) shall have utilities installed underground.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for 712 North 14th Street with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant complies with any/all electrical service issues to the site as per Section 126.02 of
the Land Development Code which may entail underground utilities and relocation of the
electrical service.
2. The applicant must adhere to the final site plan submitted in this application.
Summary of Discussion
 Commissioner Bradley requested that any future maps of the area include a North arrow and
provide us with an understanding of the surrounding area.
 Commissioner Bradley inquired as to what is directly south of the property.
o The architect for the applicant, Edye Conkerton, informed Commissioner Bradley that it
is a large lot that is owned by Dot Zinn.
 Commissioner Bradley requested that all Letters of Support be read to the Commission.
10



VI.
Chairman Harmon made a motion to approve the request with the conditions listed in the staff
report.
o Commissioner Bradley requested that “addresses” be changed to “complies with” in the
conditions.
Commissioner Whittington 2nd the motion.
The motion for variance request is approved unanimously by all present.
Case# 1915 – Site Plan Approval for ‘The Vineyards’ – a Commercial Development Located on
2994, 2996, 3000, 3002, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3010 Old Taylor Road in ‘The Vineyards’ (PUD)
Planned Unit Development
Planner’s Comments: The subject property is located on the west side on Old Taylor Road, bordering
the county line to the south and west. The property measures approximately 7.49 acres and was cleared
after the approval of a previous site plan in May of 2013. Subsequently, the project was never
developed and the site plan expired in November 2014.
The current applicant is seeking site plan approval for a commercial development containing a total of
eight buildings and 58,200 square feet of retail/commercial space. A Traffic Impact Study was
conducted in 2013 and since that time all improvements have been made. The applicant met with the
site plan review committee on June 11, 2014 and December 10, 2014. All necessary revisions have been
made.
Recommendation: Approve the request for site plan for ‘Old Taylor Village’ commercial development
with the following conditions:
1.
The signage indicated on the plan is not included in the approval.
Summary of Discussion
 Cory Alger (Architect, representing the owners of the development) – What you are seeing here
is a site map to show you where we are. The goal is to develop a neighborhood shopping
environment.
o Cory Alger shows a site plan to the Commission.
 Commissioner Whittington – Does the plan include sidewalks?
o Cory Alger- Yes, sidewalks run the entire length of the property and a bike lane is added
to the existing road.
 Commissioner Bradley – Motion to approve the site plan with the condition that signage is not
completed.
 Commissioner Alexander – 2nd the motion.
 The motion for site plan approval is approved unanimously by all present.
VII.
Case# 1920 – Add Clarification to Section 148 N-C Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
Subsection 148.02 Zoning Authority 1. 3) In the Event of a Conflict Between Underlying Zoning
Districts and the NC Overlay the Stricter Requirement Shall Control
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the Neighborhood Conservation district is an overlay
which protects the underlying historic neighborhoods in doing so the more stringent regulation should
apply. There are sections in the ordinance which state this in other parts of the development code but
11
the statement below was in conflict and confusing. Sometimes height is lower in the underlying district
than the NC zoning district which is thirty-eight feet. Controlling massing is a very important issue when
addressing infill development.
Please find the highlighted proposed text below for your consideration:
Section 148 Sec. 148. N-C Neighborhood Conservation Overlay district.
148.02 Zoning authority.
1.
Separate ordinances are required to designate each district. Ordinances designating each
Neighborhood Conservation District shall identify the designated district boundaries, and
specify the individual purposes and standards for that district.
b.
Zoning designation.
3) In the event of a conflict between the provisions of a specific Neighborhood
Conservation District ordinance and the General use District regulations, the
provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance the stricter
requirement shall control.
Summary of Discussion
 Commissioner Alexander – Motion to approve the text amendment.
 Commissioner Bradley – 2nd the motion.
 The motion for approval of the text amendment is approved unanimously by all present.
VIII.
Case# 1921 – Section 212 Site Plan Review Subsection 212.06 Procedure 2. And 3. Amending
the Length of the Review Period from 30 to 45 Days.
Please find the proposed text changes for your review highlighted below:
Section 212. Site plan review
212.06 Procedure A preliminary site plan, as provided in section 212.03, shall be filed with the director of
planning and development whose duty it shall be to submit the plan to the site plan review
committee.
No site plan shall be deemed filed until the director of planning and development determines that
all information required by this section or any other ordinance has been submitted.
2.
Time period for review. In all cases, the site plan review committee shall have up to or a
maximum of 30 45 days from the date of filing to review and recommend either approval,
approval with specific conditions, or disapproval of any site plan. The director of planning and
development may extend the time for the site plan review committee’s consideration if a
member of the site plan review committee determines that additional information is needed
to consider the site plan application.
3.
Action of the committee binding. Subject to approval by the planning commission and the mayor
and board of aldermen, action of the site plan review committee shall be binding on all city
departments as far as site plan approval for obtaining a building permit is concerned. Upon
expiration of the 30 45- day period and failure of the committee to act, the planning director
shall immediately forward the application to the planning commission for resolution.
12
This issue of having time for the planning process to be more methodical is of such importance to the
Board Aldermen they are having the first reading on this item tomorrow January 6, 2015. However Paul
Watkin’s suggestions did not make it into their packet. A second reading and public hearing which will
include the changes in blue above recommended by Paul will be heard on January 20, 2015. Please find
the memorandum that was a catalyst for this text amendment as well as the proposed text amendment
for case 1922 dealing with public hearings attached.
Summary of Discussion
 Commissioner Bradley – Motion to approve the text amendment.
 Commissioner Alexander– 2nd the motion.
 The motion for approval of the text amendment is approved unanimously by all present.
IX.
Case# 1922 – Section 226 Public Hearing Procedure to Amend Subsection 226.01 Requiring a
Public Hearing be Held Within 45 Days of Filing and Changing Requirement to 60 Days.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow more time prior to the Planning Commission hearing to
enable better management of the submittals and needed exhibits. Also if the agenda is full a case can go
on the next month’s agenda.
Please find the proposed text changes for your review highlighted below:
Sec. 226. Public hearing procedure.
226.01 Wherever in this Code reference is made to this section regarding procedures for public hearings
and application for [the] same, the following is required:
2.
The Oxford planning commission or the board of adjustment shall hold a public hearing within
45 60 days of the date of filing of the application or receipt of the site plan review committee's
review and recommendation. If scheduling such public hearing would extend the meeting
agenda of the planning commission or board of adjustment beyond the maximum length set
by board policy, the public hearing shall be held at the next regularly scheduled meeting. No
application for site plan approval shall be heard before the complete site plan has been on file
with the director of planning for at least 45 days.
This issue of having time for the planning process to be more methodical is of such importance to the
Board Aldermen, they are having the first reading on this item tomorrow January 6, 2015. However, Paul
Watkin’s suggestions did not make it into their packet. A second reading and public hearing which will
include the changes in blue above recommended by Paul will be heard on January 20, 2015.
Summary of Discussion
 Chairman Harmon – Motion to approve the text amendment.
 Commissioner Huelse – 2nd the motion.
 The motion for approval of the text amendment is approved unanimously by all present.
X.
Case# 1898 – Add Section 144 Conservation Development and Add the Special Exception for
Conservation Development Before the Planning Commission to Section 130 C-E Country Estate
Residential 130.02 Uses Permitted by Special Exceptions 6, Section 132 R-A Single Family Residential
13
District Section 132.02 Uses Permitted by Special Exceptions 7 and Section 133. R-1A Section 133.02
Uses Permitted by Special Exceptions 8.
The purpose of adding Section 144. Conservation Development is to preserve the hill country and tree
canopy of Oxford, Mississippi by enabling development of conservation design, which allow flexible
setbacks to limit grading only on streets, driveways and building pads. It is also the intent of this
section to enable conservation development for condominiums as well as single-family homes. The
adopted Comprehensive Plan on page 1 and 2 attached, outlines the Guiding Principles. “The Oxford
Comprehensive Plan embraces and is driven by the community values as expressed in the Guiding
Principles developed during the Vision 2020 project. It will be these ideas that the plan seeks to
implement to create the City of preferred choice not mere chance.”
The second guiding principle identified is understanding the Mississippi hill country landscape and
guide growth responsibly within it by encouraging compact development and using natural features to
establish town boundaries. The proposed text amendment is an important implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Please find attached Section 3A-3 from the adopted Comprehensive Plan outlining the importance of
preserving open space in residential development through the application of conservation development
principles.
Any proposal for a Conservation Development would require approval of a special exception by the
Planning Commission. Please note flexible setbacks are allowed down to 10’ feet based upon the plan
submitted for site plan review and heard by the Planning Commission.
Summary of Discussion
 Commissioner Gray – On the second page, in the second paragraph it says a cluster of typically
require 25-30% space conservation subdivision density is at least 50%. If you look at page 5
under open space, we say the minimum open space should comprise at least 25%. Is there a
reason for the discrepancy between the two?
 Andrea Correll – I think it should be changed to 25% instead of 50% on page 2.
 Commissioner Gray – Where did those numbers come from?
 Andrea Correll – We surveyed similar towns such as Birmingham.
 Reanna Mayoral – The information on page 2 came from our comprehensive plan and it
shouldn’t be changed.
 Andrea Correll – It should stay 50% on page 2.
 Commissioner Gray – Is there a rhyme or reason for why we chose 25?
 Andrea Correll – We went with 25 because we surveyed other towns and we found the most
success and we also went with 25% because we wanted to try it to see what we could do. The
Commission could always go back and amend this ordinance.
 Commissioner Gray – I am a little concerned that if we had something written in the
Comprehensive Plan of 2004, maybe we shouldn’t go against it.
 Andrea Correll – Please keep in mind that everything will come back before this commission
again.
 Chairman Bradley – The current zoning in RE requires 100 ft of road frontage but it also has
other requirements, does this mean that a special exception could reduce the square footage?
14















Andrea Correll – Yes, it could reduce the lot width as it is written. Right now your lot is 15,000
sq/ft. Only with a special exception could you choose to have a reduction in the lot width.
Commissioner Gray – But the density still has to match. If it is RE and 15,000 sq/ft with three
homes per acre, with this ordinance it will still only be three homes per acre but they would be
configure differently.
Andrea Correll – Correct. What we are saying is that you are not going to get more development
but that development may get more shapes and sizes so that you can preserve the hills and the
trees.
Paul Watkins – This is so site specific that it is difficult to describe what it will look like. What we
want is for people to come to us with different pieces of property and show us how they can
develop around some of the hill country and trees. What we are telling them in broad terms is
that we are willing to give you a shot at some flexibility. We are not going to let you build 14
units an acre when you are only supposed to have 3. But we will give you a funny looking lot if it
means that natural waterways are going to be preserved. If you show us a decent way to lay
your lots out, we will do it. The Commission will have to approve the special exception but the
site plan review committee and staff will give it an extra review just to make sure the density
terms are addressed and setbacks are adequate. Then it will come to the Commission as a
discretionary thing for you to ask, is it a good thing to make some concessions in the interest of
preserving some of the natural landscape.
Commission Gray – I don’t have any hesitation. I think this is a great idea.
Andrea Correll – We have a planner’s advisory service and we did a research project with other
areas of the south and what they are doing. I received an email that the Comprehensive Plan of
2004 said that we were going to preserve the hill country and tree canopy. I think this is a
control issue. This Commission has control but it is so important for us to not lose any more of
our character.
Commissioner Whittington – Would this have anything at Callicutt Farms and what is having on
South Lamar. They have cleared way more than office.
Commissioner Alexander – Is there a project in the near future? I am RE and there are 30 some
acres that backs up to my house and I would hate to see a large piece of land like that.
Andrea Correll – I think one of the things you could say is let’s make it a special exception and
put a tract of 2 acres on one side of your neighbors.
Commissioner Bishop – I am seeing them going in and stripping the land and making a delta lot
of flat land that is not recognizable from the original lot.
Paul Watkins – Keep in mind that this may work in conjunction with the other ordinances that
are in place like the tree mitigation ordinance. This can be another tool that can push people in
the direction of what you want to see.
Commissioner Gray – Isn’t there something in here about open space as a buffer? There is also
some very specific wording of trees of 8 inch that have to be salvaged? Who would be
responsible for that?
Andrea Correll – Katrina would be the one overseeing that and a tree survey is required.
Commissioner Bradley – The number of units will be higher. It seems to me that it should read
that a number of units shall not be higher. If you are not trying to increase the density rather the
way the natural features are preserved, then that sentence should be shall not be higher.
Andrea Correll – The intent is for you to be able to cluster things but for you not to be more than
what you agreed to. I would ask for your consideration on page 4, b. the number of units shall
not be higher.
15



XI.
Chairman Bishop – Motion to approve the text amendment with the changes that you do not
increase the density over what would normally be developed.
Commissioner Whittington – 2nd the motion.
The motion for approval of the text amendment is approved unanimously by all present.
Meeting adjourned at 6:15pm.
16