OXFORD PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes – February 9, 2021
MEMBERS: Jonathan Eady, Chair; Zach May, Vice Chair;
Juanita Carson, Secretary; Mike Ready, Jeremy Baker, and Mike McQuaide.
STAFF: Matthew Pepper, City Manager and Zoning
Administrator.
GUESTS: Susan and Steve
Roan; Melissa Tice; Sammy Griffin; Randy Simon, Director of Facilities Planning
and Operations, Oxford College; Laura Gafnea, Director of Community Relations,
Oxford College.
OPENING: At 7:02 PM, Mr. Eady called the meeting to order
and welcomed the guests.
MINUTES: Upon motion of Mr. Ready, seconded by Mr. McQuaide, the
minutes for the meeting of January 12,
2021 were adopted as amended. The vote was 6-0.
REZONING DISCUSSION: In
November 2020, the Commission made a recommendation to rezone six (6) parcels
located along E. Clark Street and Emory Street from Town Center to R-20
Residential. The Commission revisited their previous recommendation and
considered whether to recommend rezoning an additional 18 parcels located along
E. Clark Street and the east side of Emory Street. Currently, the 18 parcels
are zoned R-7.5 Residential. R-7.5 allows for the highest density of
residential development. Prior to the
meeting, the Commission invited the affected property owners to join the discussion.
Mr. Eady explained that the Commission
had previously observed that the R-7.5 designation was not consistent with the
current use of the properties. Mr. Eady further explained that the parcels were
assigned the R-7.5 designation by a prior Commission with the thought that
several of them were underdeveloped from a full intensity of land use
perspective. At that time, it was to contemplate the possibility of future
additional development on these properties. Currently, the feeling of the
community is to preserve the natural borders surrounding the Dried Indian Creek
corridor.
During the discussion, Ms. Tice shared
that her grandmother owns the property located at 708 Emory Street. She asked about
the impact on the properties that have a lot width that is less than the
required 100’. Mr. Eady responded that any lot within the city that is already
an existing subdivided lot is an official, permissible lot irrespective of the
zoning designation. If a particular existing lot were rezoned, it would not
instantly make that lot unbuildable, nor would it affect the existing dwelling.
Ms. Tice asked if an existing dwelling
would need to be rebuilt, which zoning criteria would the homeowner follow? Mr.
Eady responded that if a house is destroyed, it would need to comply with
requirements of the then applicable zoning designation during reconstruction.
In addition, Ms. Tice asked what
prompted the Commission to review the lots zoned Town Center. Mr. Eady
responded that the area of the city that is commercially developable is located
on the west side of Emory Street. Mr. Eady further explained that the six lots
zoned Town Center on the east side of Emory Street are exclusively being used
for a residential purpose. Therefore, the Commission concluded that it would be
undesirable for the current residents to live next to a property with a
commercial use.
Ms. Tice asked for access to the
city’s current zoning map. Mr. Pepper stated that he will send her a link to
the city’s interactive zoning map on the city’s website.
Mr. Griffin asked what are the
Commission’s intentions in considering the rezoning? Mr. Eady responded that
the Commission’s goal is to preserve the city’s identity as a residential
community with limited commercial development in the town center area (i.e. –
city greenspace).
In addition, Mr. Griffin asked if
Oxford College is going to purchase the existing post office. Mr. Simon and Ms.
Gafnea said that they knew of no plans for the college to purchase the post
office.
The Commission noted that many of the
existing lots under consideration comply with the criteria assigned to the R-20
zoning. They also observed that it is in the city’s best interest to focus on
lower density development while balancing the community’s desire to be
environmentally conscious, especially the area around the Dried Indian Creek
Corridor.
The
Commission will continue their discussion on the rezoning recommendation
at their March meeting. As part of their discussion in March, the Commission
will undertake a review of Section
40-638(g) “criteria for amendments to official zoning maps” as they
develop the recommendation. In addition, the Commission will analyze whether
the current square footage of the existing dwellings and lot widths will
conform with the R-7.5 zoning criteria. As before, they will invite each
affected property owner to join the discussion to offer input on the
recommendation. Once the Commission makes a recommendation, it will be sent to
the Mayor and Council for consideration through a formal public hearing
process.
DISCUSSION
ON AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 40: The Commission continued their discussion on the
amendments to Chapter 40 Zoning, specifically Sections 40-575, 40-712, 40-713,
40-841, 40-842, and Division 16 – Residential Infill Overlay District. Prior to
the meeting, Mr. Eady shared a summary of the proposed amendments with the
Commission. Mr. Eady asked that the Commission review the summary and provide
any feedback on the proposed amendments. The Commission will then review the
feedback at the March meeting.
During the
discussion, Mr. Pepper asked if the Commission is open to include making
repairs to an existing driveway to the specific scope of improvements that
would not require a development permit. The Commission agreed that it would be
appropriate to include it.
In addition, Mr.
Pepper asked if installing a shed in a backyard could be approved
administratively. The Commission agreed that a shed in the backyard of a
specific size (to be determined at a later date) with no setback issues could
be approved administratively. They also agreed developing criteria for size,
materials, lack of utilities, etc. for administrative approval.
Prior to the
meeting, Mr. Pepper sent the Commission a list of permits that the city
approved when it contracted for third-party building inspection and permitting
services. The Commission agreed that structures like pools, decks, and fences
would require a variation of a building permit as currently adopted.
As for trade
permits, the Commission agreed that only a trade permit would be required for
maintenance or replacement of a dwelling’s plumbing, HVAC, or electric system.
The
Commission will continue their discussion on amendments to Chapter 40 during
future meetings. They will share their recommendations with the Mayor and
Council.
OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Pepper
shared with the Commission the letter that the city sends to each resident
annually to explain the permitting process. The Commission had no comments.
ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Eady adjourned the meeting at 8:20 PM.
Submitted by:
Juanita Carson, Secretary