- Special Sections
- Dawgs Deals
By STEVEN NALLEY
The Starkville Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of a preliminary plat for Michael Krakerâs PUD (planned unit development) located on a recent extension of Garrard Road at its meeting 5:30 Tuesday at City Hall.
Krakerâs PUD, The Cottages at Creekside, is a compact âpocket neighborhoodâ 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, Krakerâs 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 projectâs progress.
âWeâre just excited we have gotten to this point and hope that we have met all the conditions,â Gayle said. âWe 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
Commissioner Dora Herring raised one of the few discussion points, asking if most of the PUDâs buildings would have two stories. Gayle said this case was unlikely.
âAt this point Iâm not thinking they will be,â Gayle said. âThe designs that weâre contemplating are not (two stories).â
Also, a clerical error in the minutes from the commissionâs 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(Mobile Homes/MHP/MHS),â and at Herringâs request, Griffith explained the two acronyms stand for âMobile Home Parksâ and âMobile Home Subdivisionsâ respectively.
â(Those two uses are not) really appropriate for R-M, but thatâs how itâs (rendered) in our zoning ordinances,â Griffith said. âWhen you read the intent and read the definition, it does not include a provision for parks or subdivisions. Itâs intended for single lots. Itâs a little misleading.â
Herring said she had conducted extensive research and found Griffithâs 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.
âHerring said. âNowhere (do previous documents) mention the way weâre listing it here, and Iâm wondering if we shouldnât 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