- Special Sections
- Dawgs Deals
- Local Guide
By STEVEN NALLEY
The Starkville Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of a preliminary plat for Michael Krakerâ€™s PUD (planned unit development) located on a recent extension of Garrard Road at its meeting 5:30 Tuesday at City Hall.
Krakerâ€™s PUD, The Cottages at Creekside, is a compact â€śpocket neighborhoodâ€ť of 23 detached, single-family residences slated to become one of the first developments on the Garrard Road extension opened in August 2011. When Kraker first requested a zone change from R-1 (residential) to PUD in August, the development became the subject of extensive discussion and debate throughout fall 2011.
This time, Krakerâ€™s plat for the development was approved with minimal discussion and no public comment. The board recommended approval in a 4-1 vote, with commissioner Ira Loveless against and commissioner Jason Walker absent.
When Kraker and his team received the chance to address the commission, his wife, Gayle Kraker, said she was happy with the projectâ€™s progress.
â€śWeâ€™re just excited we have gotten to this point and hope that we have met all the conditions,â€ť Gayle said. â€śWe met with the department heads last week, and they all made their comments. They had a few little things I think we were changing. Otherwise, they all approved.â€ť
Commissioner Dora Herring raised one of the few discussion points, asking if most of the PUDâ€™s buildings would have two stories. Gayle said this case was unlikely.
â€śAt this point Iâ€™m not thinking they will be,â€ť Gayle said. â€śThe designs that weâ€™re contemplating are not (two stories).â€ť
Also, a clerical error in the minutes from the commissionâ€™s March 13 meeting led Herring to ask City Planner Ben Griffith to investigate R-M zoning regulations. In these minutes, R-M was designated as allowing for â€ś(Mobile Homes/MHP/MHS),â€ť and at Herringâ€™s request, Griffith explained the two acronyms stand for â€śMobile Home Parksâ€ť and â€śMobile Home Subdivisionsâ€ť respectively.
â€ś(Those two uses are not) really appropriate for R-M, but thatâ€™s how itâ€™s (rendered) in our zoning ordinances,â€ť Griffith said. â€śWhen you read the intent and read the definition, it does not include a provision for parks or subdivisions. Itâ€™s intended for single lots. Itâ€™s a little misleading.â€ť
Herring said she had conducted extensive research and found Griffithâ€™s assessment to be correct, but she said she wanted Griffith to conduct his own research and assessment and report back to the board at the next meeting.
â€śHerring said. â€śNowhere (do previous documents) mention the way weâ€™re listing it here, and Iâ€™m wondering if we shouldnâ€™t make that correct. Going forward, if it is wrong we need to correct it, because it would be appropriate for many of our people (with mobile homes on their own properties), especially in the annexed area.â€ť