OFFIICAL AGENDA - City of Starkville

Transcription

OFFICIAL AGENDA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
CITY OF STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011
4:00 PM IN THE CITY HALL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
101 E. LAMPKIN STREET (2nd FLOOR) STARKVILLE, MS 39759
I.
CALL TO ORDER
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 28,
2011 MEETING MINUTES
IV.
NEW BUSINESS
A. VA 11-05: A REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY
MICHAEL KRAKER, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO
APPENDIX A, ARTICLE VII, SECTION O(B)(I), APPENDIX B,
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 1(6)(A & B) AND SECTION 98-54(C)
OF THE STARKVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO GRANT
AN INCREASE IN DENSITY, AND REDUCTIONS IN THE
WIDTHS OF PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY, STREETS AND
SIDEWALKS FOR A PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) KNOWN AS “THE COTTAGES AT
CREEKSIDE” FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF EAST GARRARD ROAD, WEST OF OLD WEST
POINT ROAD IN WARD 5
V.
PLANNER REPORT
VI.
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the
City’s ADA Coordinator at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (662) 323-8012, ext. 119.
City of Starkville, Mississippi
Board of Adjustments & Appeals
2012 Public Meeting Schedule
Advertised
Submittal
Deadline
Non-Advertised
Submittal
Deadline
Public
Meeting
Date
December 19
January 23
February 20
March 26
April 23
May 21
June 25
July 23
August 20
September 24
October 22
November 19
December 17
January 9
February 6
March 12
April 9
May 7
June 11
July 9
August 6
September 10
October 8
November 12
December 3
January 7
January 25
February 22
March 28
April 25
May 23
June 27
July 25
August 22
September 26
October 24
November 28
December 19
January 23
“Advertised” items, such as variances, require advertisement,
notification and posting
“Non-Advertised” items, such as appeals, do NOT require legal advertisements
Meetings begin at 4:00 PM and are held in the Building Department
(Second Floor) at City Hall
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
THE CITY OF STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a meeting at 4:00 PM in the Building Department at
City Hall. Members present included Mr. Lee Carson from Ward 1, Dr. Milo Burnham from Ward
2, Dr. Jeff Markham from Ward 3, Dr. Dennis Nordin from Ward 4, Mr. Marco Nicovich from
Ward 5, Mr. James Johnson from Ward 6 and Mr. John Hill from Ward 7. Attending the Board
Members was City Planner Ben Griffith and Assistant City Planner Pamela Daniel.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
City Planner Ben Griffith called the meeting to order and introduced Mr. Lee Carson representing
Ward 1 and Mr. Marco Nicovich representing Ward 6. He also introduced new Assistant City
Planner Pamela Daniel.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. Griffith stated that with the departure of Mr. Bell and Ms. McCarthy, both of whom were
ineligible to serve another term, the Board was left with no Chairman and Vice-Chairman. He stated
that there was no prerequisite for serving other than being a current member of the Board. With
that, he opened the floor for nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Nicovich nominated Dr. Burnham as Chairman, which was seconded by Dr. Nordin. After
discussion and a unanimous vote, Dr. Burnham was duly elected Chairman.
Mr. Hill then nominated Mr. Nicovich as Vice-Chairman which was seconded by Dr. Markham.
After discussion and a unanimous vote, Mr. Nicovich was duly elected Vice-Chairman.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2011
There came before the Board of Adjustments & Appeals the matter of approval of the May 25, 2011
meeting minutes. After discussion and upon the motion of Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hill, the
Board voted unanimously to approve said minutes as presented. Mr. Nicovich abstained from
voting.
A REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY MR. THOMAS ALLEN TO
CONSIDER GRANTING A VARIANCE TO APPENDIX A, ARTICLE VII,
SECTION L (4) OF THE STARKVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO GRANT
TWO 10-FOOT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD BUILDING
Page 1 of 3
SET BACKS, CREATING TWO 0-FOOT SIDE YARDS IN LIEU OF THE 10 FEET
REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPRINT MART
GASOLINE PUMP CANOPY IN A C-2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 1218 HIGHWAY 12 WEST IN WARD 1
Next there came before the Board of Adjustments & Appeals item #VA 11-04: a request by Mr.
Thomas Allen to consider granting a variance to Appendix A, Article VII, Section L (4) of the
Starkville Code of Ordinances to grant two 10-foot encroachments into required side yard building
set backs, creating two 0-foot side yards in lieu of the 10 feet required to allow for the construction
of a Sprint Mart gasoline canopy in a C-2 (General Business) zoning district, located at 1218
Highway 12 West in Ward 1.
Mr. Thomas Allen, Mr. Joe Gillis and Mr. Thomas Taylor were present to address the request.
Mr. Allen told members that his client intends to build a new Sprint Mart with 8 gas pumps to
replace the store and pumps currently located there. He referred to the site as the “Sanders Store”
in reference to the name of a previous business owner. Mr. Thomas also pointed out the unique
shape of the parcel with streets on two sides coming almost to a point. He also stated that the site
plan had not yet been before the Development Review Committee, pending the outcome of the
variance request.
The Board discussed several of the general features of the gasoline canopy and its relation to the
adjacent roadways and whether there would be any conflicts with right-of-way, now or in the future.
After further discussion, Mr. Nicovich made a motion to approve the request based on the findings
of fact and conclusion of the staff report prepared by Assistant City Planner Pamela Daniel, and the
following conditions:
1. The encroachment shall extend no more than ten (10) feet into the side yard building setback.
2. The applicant shall submit a complete site plan package to the City’s Development Review
Committee and receive approval within one-hundred-eighty (180) days of approval of the
variance request by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals.
3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and begin construction within ninety (90) days of
the approval of the site plan by the City’s Development Review Committee.
4. All of the above conditions shall be fully and faithfully executed or the variance shall become
null and void.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to approve the variances
requested.
Page 2 of 3
PLANNER REPORT
Mr. Griffith stated that there were no pending cases for the month of October and concluded by
reminding the Board members to be mindful of all ex parte communications and to contact the
Planning Office with any questions they had regarding any upcoming cases.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board of Adjustments & Appeals, a motion to adjourn
was made by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Hill at 4:25 PM.
________________________________
Milo Burnham, Chairman
________________________________
Ben Griffith, AICP, City Planner
Page 3 of 3
THE CITY OF STARKVILLE
CITY HALL, 101 E. LAMPKIN STREET
STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 39759-2944
ST A F F R EP OR T
TO:
Members of the Board of Adjustments & Appeals
FROM:
Ben Griffith, AICP, City Planner (662-323-8012 ext. 119)
CC:
Michael Kraker, Applicant
SUBJECT: VA 11-05: Variances requested for “The Cottages at Creekside” located on the north side of
East Garrard Road, west of Old West Point Road in Ward 5; Parcel Number 117C-00-036.01
DATE:
November 10, 2011
________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this report is to provide you with information regarding the request of Mr.
Michael Kraker to review the following variance requests for a proposed Planned Unit
Development (PUD) project called “The Cottages at Creekside” consisting of 23 detached,
single-family residential dwelling units on approximately 5.01 acres of land:
1. Appendix A, Article VII, Section (O)(B)(i) to allow an increase of 1.04 dwelling units in
net density to 6.04 dwelling units per acre for the project, in lieu of the maximum 5.00
dwelling units per acre allowed.
2. Appendix B, Article VI, Section 1(6)(a) to allow for an 8-foot decrease in right-of-way
width from the 50 feet minimally required to 42 feet in width.
3. Appendix B, Article VI, Section 1(6)(b) to allow for a 7-foot decrease in roadway width
from the 31 feet minimally required, back-of-curb to back-of-curb, to 24 feet in width.
4. Section 98-54(c) to allow a 1-foot decrease in the required width of sidewalks to allow a
4-foot wide sidewalk in lieu of the 5 feet minimally required.
Chapter 2, Article VI of the City’s Code of Ordinances provides specific criteria for the
review and approval of variance requests.
BACKGROUND
General Information:
The applicant submitted a Planned Unit Development proposal called “The Cottages at
Creekside” which would be composed of 23 detached, single-family residences on
approximately 5.03 acres of land, located on the north side of East Garrard Road,
approximately 1,200 feet west of Old West Point Road in the southwestern corner of what
was formerly known as the “Pilkington Trailer Park.” The northern boundary of the project
area loosely follows the course of one of the tributaries of Sand Creek and the applicant’s
designer incorporated this water feature into the overall design of the project, including
stormwater retention areas which serve as recreational areas when not wet, and gravel
walking paths along the creek bank and throughout the development. The project was
reviewed by the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) on July 20, 2011 and those
comments have been included with the PUD rezoning staff report. The DRC recognized
that the right-of-ways and roadways were less than the minimum required, but confirmed
that due to the layout and configuration of the internal streets, first responders and
sanitation vehicles would still be able to access the development. Planning staff advised the
applicant that a variance would be required for the differences in right-of-way, roadway and
sidewalk widths, separate from the PUD approval, since they were all dimensional variances.
On August 9, 2011, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Commission
for the rezoning of the subject property from R-1 (Single Family) to PUD (Planned Unit
Residential) based on changing conditions in the area, which included the construction and
opening of East Garrard Road, connecting Old West Point Road to North Montgomery
Street, and the conceptual site plan for “The Cottages at Creekside.” The public hearing was
lengthy with many area residents speaking against the proposed rezoning. The major issue
was the proposed increase in density compared to the surrounding area, and whether or not
there actually had been a change in area conditions since the new roadway was not yet open
to the general public. After discussion with the Commission, the applicant decided to
withdraw the request and wait until East Garrard Road was officially opened. A copy of the
approved minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission is included in your packet to
provide a summary of the comments received at the public hearing and the discussion
among the Commissioners.
The roadway was officially opened on Monday, August 22, 2011 during a ribbon-cutting
ceremony by Mayor Parker Wiseman and the applicant resubmitted his PUD request. The
item went before the Planning & Zoning Commission on September 13, 2011 and the staff
report and other supporting attachments are included for your reference in your packet,
including a copy of the approved minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Since
there had been so much discussion and confusion regarding density during the August 9th
meeting, Planning staff provided additional information on the topic from the previous staff
report, hoping to clarify the issue for both the general public and Commissioners. The
density issue was once again a major topic of discussion and the Planning & Zoning
Commission eventually recommended approval of the PUD by a split vote, adding a
condition to “provide corrected net density calculations.”
The PUD request went before the Mayor and Board of Aldermen on October 4, 2011 and
once again, the major topic of discussion was regarding the density. The Aldermen
discussed how density was calculated and after much discussion and by a split vote, the
Board of Aldermen voted to approve the PUD request with the conditions recommended by
the Planning & Zoning Commission, adding that the increase in density should be addressed
by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals, along with the dimensional variances required for
right-of-way, roadway and sidewalk widths.
Table 32 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan provides gross density ranges for the various
zoning classifications. Gross density is basically the number of proposed dwelling units
divided by the number of acres. In this case, 23 dwelling units divided by 5.01 acres equals
4.59 dwelling units per acre. If the acreage for the proposed roadways (1.2 acres) were to be
subtracted from the 5.01 total acreage for the site, approximately 3.81 acres would remain.
If the same 23 dwelling units were to be divided by 3.81, the resulting “net” density would
2
be 6.04 dwelling units per acre. Appendix A, Article VII, Section (O)(B)(i) of the City’s
PUD regulations allow an increase in density by not more than 25% of the maximum
allowed densities of the adjacent properties.
The surrounding properties are categorized as “Low Density Residential” by Table 32, which
allows a maximum gross density of 4 dwelling units per acre. If the “gross” density
calculation of the project of 4.59 dwelling units is utilized, then the increase is less than the
25% allowed. If the “net” density calculation of the project of 6.04 dwelling units is utilized,
then the increase is greater than the 25% allowed.
There was much discussion regarding which density calculation to use, especially for
comparison purposes. The surrounding properties’ maximum allowance of up to 4 dwelling
units per acre is a “gross” calculation. It is a general “rule of thumb” that for development
estimation purposes, around 20% of developable property will be used for infrastructure,
such as roadways and drainage. The actual, final or “net” density would probably be closer
to 3.2 dwelling units per acre when roadways are subtracted from the total acreage, but this
can only be estimated without the benefit of a detailed plan such as the one that the
applicant has provided as part of the PUD request.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan makes no provision for “net” density, only referring to
“gross” density, while the definitions section of the Code of Ordinances only provides a
definition for density, which reads, “the number of dwelling units permitted per net acre of
land.” Article V, Section 6(5) of the City’s Subdivision Regulations reads in part: “the
planned unit development shall indicate the proposed maximum dwelling unit density per
acre, not including streets…” which further confuses how to calculate density, especially for
comparative purposes.
Planning staff has stated all along that comparing gross densities is the most widely accepted
method in standard planning practice. This would be the 4.59 dwelling units per acre for the
proposed PUD project vs. 4.00 dwelling units per acre for the surrounding properties, which
would not be an increase of over 25%. However, the conflicting codes and definitions have
made it difficult to objectively calculate density for residential projects. It appears that both
the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of Aldermen have left it to the Board of
Adjustments & Appeals to make the determination of how to calculate and compare
residential densities in general and to make a decision on the density for the proposed
“Cottages at Creekside” project which is presently under consideration.
One last item to note is the letter provided by the applicant, dated November 4, 2011, where
he states that he would like to withdraw the request for the 4-foot sidewalk. Since the
request has already been advertised, Planning staff will need to address the request as it was
submitted and will include a recommended condition to deny the sidewalk variance in the
conclusions section of the staff report. The applicant also requested that his letter to the
Mayor and Board of Aldermen, submitted for their consideration of the PUD request, also
be included with the staff report for the Board of Adjustments & Appeals. Both letters are
included with this staff report for consideration.
3
Ten property owners of record within 160 feet of the subject property were notified directly
by mail of the variances requested. These were the same property owners who were notified
of the original PUD request. A public hearing notice was published in the Starkville Daily
News on Friday, October 28, 2011 and a placard was posted on the property concurrent
with publication of the notice. As of this date, the Planning Office has received no contact
from anyone regarding the variances requested.
Legal Description: COMMENCE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH
BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 19
NORTH, RANGE 14 EAST, OKTIBBEHA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR NORTH MONTGOMERY STREET; THENCE RUN S89°49’E
1916.60 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE RUN N00°17’E 99.85 FEET TO A
FOUND IRON PIN AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION.
CONTINUE N00°17’E ALONG SAID FENCE 443.74 FEET; THENCE RUN S56°29’E
283.23 FEET; THENCE RUN S69°46’E 104.58 FEET; THENCE RUN S88°26’E 91.83
FEET; THENCE RUN S82°25’E 218.80 FEET; THENCE RUN S58°29’E 388.01 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PAT STATION ROAD;
THENCE RUN SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,538.01 FEET AND ALSO HAVING A LONG CHORD OF
BEARING S86°45’W AND LENGTH OF 33.22 FEET FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF
33.22 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S89°05’W 942.82 FEET
TO A FOUND IRON PIN AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS
DESCRIPTION BEING A TOTAL OF 5.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALL BEING
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 26, T-19-N, R-14-E, OKTIBBEHA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
Location: The subject property is located on the north side of East Garrard Road,
approximately 1,200 feet west of Old West Point Road, in the southwestern corner of what
used to be known as the “Pilkington Trailer Park.”
Parcel Size: The subject property is approximately 5.01 acres in size.
Physical Characteristics: The subject property is triangular in shape with the
“hypotenuse” of the triangle loosely following the course of one of the tributaries of Sand
Creek, and is mostly overgrown, except for open areas amongst the trees and a gravel road
which once served the former trailer park.
Zoning Classification: Approved for rezoning from R-1 (Single Family) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) on October 4, 2011, by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
Setback Dimensions: Due to the unique nature of a PUD, there are no minimum building
setbacks, lot sizes or square footages. Instead, the applicant is required to meet minimum
requirements of open space and common area and provide amenities not ordinarily found in
a typical development, and provide an overall conceptual master plan which shows where
very building footprint, roadway, sidewalk and other physical site improvement is proposed
in order to give the reviewers an overall view of the project when built.
4
Adjacent Zonings / Land Uses:
Direction
North
East
South
West
Zoning
R-1
R-1
R-E
R-1
Current Use
Vacated former trailer park
Single-family detached homes
Vacant undeveloped land
Appendix A, Article VI, Section K of the City’s Code of Ordinances provides relief from the
requirements of the land development regulations when such relief will not be contrary to
the public interest and, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the land development regulations would result in an unnecessary hardship.
When appropriate, the Board of Adjustments & Appeals may prescribe appropriate
conditions and safeguards in the granting of the variance. In determining whether or not
sufficient justification for the granting of a variance has been fulfilled, the Board of
Adjustments & Appeals must find that the following criteria have been met. The criteria are
outlined below, along with analysis of the conformance of the request with the variance
standard.
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure
or building involved and which are not applicable to other land, structures or buildings
in the same zoning district.
The subject property was formerly utilized as a trailer park and is now being proposed as a
compact “pocket neighborhood” development with smaller, detached single-family residences.
The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development which allows greater densities
through the use of creative and innovative design and land use. This would blend well with
the reduced right-of-way and street widths and for a slightly higher density for the project
due to the amenities and open space provided.
2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action or
negligence of the applicant.
The applicant has intentionally designed a compact “pocket neighborhood” with smaller
homes on smaller lots, while at the same time, providing pedestrian-friendly amenities, open
space and utilizing an existing creek as a part of the project. The Planned Unit
Development regulations allow for increases in densities if certain specific criteria are met.
3. That granting the variance requested will not confer upon the applicant any special
privileges denied by the land development regulations to other lands, buildings or
structures in the same zoning district.
No special privileges would be conferred on the applicant that could be denied to others in
the same district. The proposed development would be in character with others that the
applicant has built in other parts of the City. City staff and members of the Development
Review Committee have indicated that they foresee no issues with the compact rights-of-way
and roadways. The density, whether 4.59 or 6.04 dwelling units per acre, is extremely low
compared to that of other Planned Unit Developments located throughout the City, which
range from an average of 15—60 dwelling units per acre.
5
4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the land development regulations would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in this same
zoning district under the terms of this ordinance and would work unnecessary and
undue hardship on the applicant.
Denial of the variances to right-of-way and roadway widths would require the applicant to
completely re-design the project, losing the intended character of a compact “pocket
neighborhood” for the subject property. Standard subdivision design to the surrounding low
density residential areas would result in another sprawling residential subdivision, similar
to others found throughout the City. The density for the proposed Planned Unit
Development would be the lowest in the City, much more comparable to other standard
single-family residential subdivisions found throughout the City.
5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building or structure.
The variance requested is the minimum required to accommodate the applicant’s desire to
build a compact “pocket neighborhood” development, which is intended to provide amenities
including walking paths and other pedestrian-friendly features.
6. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
the land development regulations and that such variance will not be injurious to the area
involved or otherwise detrimental to the public interest or welfare.
The variance requested will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the land
development regulations for Planned Unit Developments and the variance will not be
injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public interest or welfare.
CONCLUSIONS
If the Board of Adjustments & Appeals were to grant the variance request to allow the
following variance requests for a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) project called
“The Cottages at Creekside”:
1. Appendix A, Article VII, Section (O)(B)(i) to allow an increase of 1.04 dwelling units in
net density to 6.04 dwelling units per acre for the project, in lieu of the maximum 5.00
dwelling units per acre allowed.
2. Appendix B, Article VI, Section 1(6)(a) to allow for an 8-foot decrease in right-of-way
width from the 50 feet minimally required to 42 feet in width.
3. Appendix B, Article VI, Section 1(6)(b) to allow for a 7-foot decrease in roadway width
from the 31 feet minimally required, back-of-curb to back-of-curb, to 24 feet in width.
4. Section 98-54(c) to allow a 1-foot decrease in the required width of sidewalks to allow a
4-foot wide sidewalk in lieu of the 5 feet minimally required.
located on the north side of East Garrard Road, approximately 1,200 feet west of Old West
Point Road, in the southwestern corner of what used to be known as the “Pilkington Trailer
Park” as proposed by the applicant on the application dated October 5, 2011, the approval
6
would be based on the findings of fact and conclusions of this staff report dated November
10, 2011, and the following conditions:
1. The variance request for a 1-foot decrease in the required width of the sidewalks is
denied and the applicant shall be required to construct all sidewalks at least 5 feet in
width in accordance with the City’s sidewalk ordinance.
2. The variances for right-of-way and roadway are approved as proposed.
3. The number of dwelling units proposed for “The Cottages at Creekside” shall not
exceed a maximum of twenty-three (23).
4. The density for the project is determined to be ____ dwelling units per acre.
5. The applicant shall submit a complete site plan package, including infrastructure, to the
City’s Development Review Committee within one-hundred-eighty (180) days of
approval of the variances requested by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals.
6. The applicant shall obtain permits and commence construction activities within ninety
(90) days of the approval of the site plan by the City’s Development Review Committee.
7. All of the above conditions shall be fully and faithfully executed or the variances shall
become null and void.
7
CITY OF STARKVILLE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
CASE LOCATOR MAP
Case # VA 11-05
Ward # 5
Date of Public Hearing: Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Pr
es
sle
y
Trotter Lane
Dr
ive
Shaded Area Indicates Subject Property
tre
et
Old West Point Ro
ad
Ro
se
Ev
an
sP
erk
ins
S
.
Not to Scale
Michael Kraker Properties
501 S. Montgomery St.
P.O. Box 1306
Starkville, MS 39760
Phone 662-324-1414
Fax 662-324-0306
November 4, 2011
To: Board of Adjustments and Appeals
City of Starkville
From: Michael Kraker
As one of the conditions of approval by the Board of Aldermen, I would like to request 3 variances for our
“Cottages of Creekside” development on the new East Garrard Road extension. They are density, street
th
width, and proposed right-of-way. The 4 variance was to be for the sidewalk width which we have
decided to change to meet the 5’ sidewalk requirement.
Our plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of
Aldermen with these variances. There are currently no requirements established for street widths,
sidewalks, and right-of-ways for Planned Unit Developments. The Standards for considering variances
that must be met are as follows:
1. Existence of special conditions or circumstances. The PUD district allows changes from the
subdivision regulations that apply to other Residential districts due to the nature of the
development which is to have smaller lots with more common area. The rezoning from R-1 to a
PUD is the special condition that exists.
2. Conditions not created by the applicant- Once again the PUD district does not define
requirements for street widths, sidewalks, and right-of-ways. It is designed to allow for such
variances as we are seeking. These items are all part of the intent of the PUD district zoning
classification that take into account the deviations from typical Residential districts.
3. Special privileges not conferred.- We are not asking for any special privileges but rather what is
designed by the codes to accommodate the Planned Unit Development districts.
4. Hardship conditions exist.- Under current procedures implemented by the city a PUD district
cannot be approved without the request going to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for
approval of any variances. The reason for the PUD district is to allow for variances.
5. Only minimum variances granted.- Many new “Pocket Neighborhoods” in other areas of the
country have much narrower streets and minimum sidewalks. We are requesting a 42’ right of
way instead of the required width of 50’. We are requesting 24’ street width instead of 31’. Both
the sanitation department and the fire department have agreed that this is acceptable. These are
the minimum variances that would meet design specifications for this development.
6. Not injurious to the public welfare.- The granting of this variance will be in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of the land development regulations and these variances will not be
injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public interest or welfare.
Density- During the past 2 meetings of planning and zoning commission and the Board of Aldermen the
density requirements were discussed at length and in great detail. It was pointed out that subdivision code
states “The PUD shall indicate the proposed maximum dwelling unit density per acre, not including
streets". This calculation computes to approximately 6 units per acre density. It is our belief that this
information was to be indicated, but was not required to be used as a determining factor for calculating
allowable density. There is no way to compare it to R-1 density other than gross density to gross densitysince there could be many possible street configurations for R-1. The current R-1 zoning would allow up to
4 units per acre, or 20 units total for the 5.01 acre tract. Our PUD request is for 23 lots, which is within the
allowable increase of 25% according to zoning regulations when figured net to net. To my knowledge,
there is no where in the zoning regulations that specifically states how the variance on density is to be
calculated. It is very ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Based on one interpretation of
excluding the street in calculating density for a PUD, we are seeking a variance.
To: Board of Aldermen, Starkville, MS
From: Michael Kraker
In the city codes there are several references to the P & Z’s or Board of Aldermen’s
ability to waive certain provisions in rezoning matters- I have cited a few which I think
would apply to our request for a PUD approval in relation to Dora Herring’s letter of
concerns.
CODE OF ORDINANCES
City of
STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI
Appendix A-Zoning
Article VII- District Regulations
Section O –Planned Unit Developments
A. Policy for planned unit developments.
To encourage more creative, efficient, and aesthetically desirable design in the urban
environment, the planned unit development provisions waive certain district requirements
to permit large tracts of land to be developed as integral units for single-family,
townhouse, cluster, condominium, multifamily, and other innovative residential
developments.
B. Conditions to be met by special plans for planned unit developments.
The density requirement for residential elements of a planned unit development may be
permitted to exceed conventional allowable density by not more than 25 percent,
provided that all other standards mandated for a planned unit development are
satisfactorily met and if the planning and zoning commission determines that the site plan
demonstrates sufficient rationale and provisions for such increase. (Conventional
allowable has always been calculated as 4 lots/acre for R-1. No where does it state that it
must be compared as net to net- 4/acre = 20 dwelling units compared to 23 as requested
in our PUD- well within the 25% variance)
Appendix B – Subdivisions Article 5 – General Principles
Sec. 6. - Planned unit development.
1. The authorization of a planned unit development as described herein shall be subject to
the following additional conditions: The commission may authorize the development as
submitted, or may modify, alter or adjust the development plan before granting
authorization, and in authorizing the development, it may also prescribe other conditions.
The development as authorized shall be subject to all conditions so imposed, and shall be
excepted from provisions of this ordinance only to the extent specified in the
authorization.
2. The application for approval must be accompanied by an overall development plan
showing the proposed use or uses, dimensions and locations of proposed structures,
parking spaces, and areas to be reserved for streets, parks, playgrounds, school sites, and
other open spaces, as well as all other pertinent information necessary to determine if the
contemplated arrangement or use will require the application of provisions or restrictions
differing from those ordinarily applicable under this Code.
4. The proposed development must be designed to produce an environment of stable and
desirable character, and must provide standards of open space and permanently reserved
areas for off-street parking adequate for the occupancy proposed, and at least equivalent
to those required by the terms of this ordinance for the proposed use. It must also include
an adequate amount of recreational areas to meet the needs of the anticipated population
specified in the comprehensive plan. (Dr. Herring’s concern of parking- 3
spaces/dwelling will be provided)
5.The planned unit development shall indicate the proposed maximum dwelling unit
density per acre, not including streets; provisions for maintenance of areas set aside for
streets and common open space. (No where does it state that this calculation is to be used
for determining 25% variance- it was an oversight that this was not indicated on the plan)
Sec. 7. - Innovative development design.
1. The commission may recommend acceptance of the plot plan as presented, as
submitted, or may alter, adjust or modify any innovative development plan submitted for
consideration. The commission may impose additional conditions which must be met, or
may waive existing provisions which must be specified. All other provisions of the Code
shall remain imposed.
2. The application shall be accompanied by an overall development plan showing the use,
dimensions and locations of proposed structures, parking spaces and any areas to be
reserved for streets, parks, playgrounds, school sites and other open spaces. It must also
contain pertinent data necessary to determine if the proposed design and use make it
desirable to exempt the regulations and requirements normally applicable under this
ordinance.
Appendix B- Subdivisions
Article VIII – Variances
Section 1 – Limits of Variances
Upon the written request of the subdivider, the planning and zoning commission may
modify some of the design requirements, but it has no authority to waive any of the
improvements or procedural steps which must be followed.
Section 2 – Purpose
Minor modifications of the provisions set forth in these rules and regulations may be
authorized by the commission in specific cases when, in its opinion, undue hardships may
result from a strict adherence to these requirements. All final determinations shall be
based fundamentally on the fact that unusual topographic and/or other exceptional
conditions require that such modification be made. The commission may modify, vary or
waive some of the requirements, provided that such modification, variance or waiver will
not significantly nullify the purpose or intent of the subdivision regulations. Every
modification, variance or waiver of the regulations, as well as the reason for such
modification, variance or waiver shall be entered upon the minutes of the commission.
Minor modifications of these provisions may also be made for a planned unit
development when so authorized by the commission.
Comprehensive Plan states: C. Land use requirement:
x. Zoning regulations which provide opportunities for innovation in the design of
residential environments shall be encouraged (more planned developments, like PUDs).
Table 32
Recommended Gross Density, Type of Dwelling Unit, and Utility Standard for Various
Types of Residential Development in Starkville
LOW 1 – 4 DUs per acre Single family (detached) R-E, R-1
We are confident that our request for a PUD meets all of the city requirements. We look
forward to offering this new development to the city of Starkville.
Thank you in advance for your support of this project.
Michael and Gayle Kraker
CITY OF STARKVILLE
RECOMMENDATION FOR BOARD ACTION
AGENDA DATE: 10-4-2011
Page 1 of 1
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE P&Z ITEM #PD 11-03: A REQUEST BY
MR. MICHAEL KRAKER FOR APPROVAL OF A PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST GARRARD ROAD, WEST
OF OLD WEST POINT ROAD IN WARD 5.
AMOUNT & SOURCE OF FUNDING: N/A
FISCAL NOTE: N/A
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Building Codes & Planning
DIRECTOR’S AUTHORIZATION: BHG
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Griffith at 323-8012, ext. 119
PRIOR BOARD ACTION: None
BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTION: P&Z recommended approval of the PUD request
(4—1—1) on September 13, 2011 with 5 conditions. Several public comments were received at
the public hearing.
PURCHASING: N/A
DEADLINE: N/A
AUTHORIZATION HISTORY: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff proposed 4 conditions to consider if the request were to
be approved and the P&Z added another, directing staff to provide corrected density calculations.
Please see attachments for details and additional information.
Suggested motion: “MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST OF MICHAEL KRAKER FOR THE 5.01 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF EAST GARRARD ROAD, WEST OF OLD WEST POINT ROAD AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE FORMER PILKINGTON TRAILER PARK WITH THE 5
CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.”
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ST A F F R EP OR T
TO:
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM:
Ben Griffith, AICP, City Planner (662-323-8012 ext. 119)
CC:
Michael Kraker, Applicant
SUBJECT: PD 11-03: “The Cottages at Creekside” located on the north side of E. Garrard Road in Ward 5
Parcel Number 117C-00-036.01
DATE:
September 13, 2011
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this report is to provide information regarding the request of Mr. Michael
Kraker to amend the zoning classification of the above-referenced property from R-1 (Single
Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow the development of a proposed
“pocket neighborhood” to be called “The Cottages at Creekside” consisting of 23 detached,
single-family residential units and common areas. The PUD will affect approximately 5.01
acres of land. The PUD application will require review and approval by the Mayor and
Board of Aldermen, possibly as early as their meeting of October 4, 2011.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject property is currently zoned R-1 and is generally located at the southwestern
corner of what was formerly known as the “Pilkington Trailer Park.” In 2008, the current
property owners submitted a preliminary plat to develop the site as a subdivision of
detached, single-family residences. The City had been seeking to acquire right-of-way for a
long-planned east-west connector road to assist public safety personnel in decreasing their
response times to emergencies on the north side of town. When negations, including the
City’s offer to assist in the development costs of the project, failed, the City initiated a quicktake action in order to secure an approximate 100-foot “slice” off the southernmost portion
of the former trailer park property. Construction of East Garrard Road has been completed
and was officially opened to traffic at a ribbon cutting ceremony by Mayor Parker Wiseman
on Monday, August 22, 2011.
The applicant is proposing a compact, “pocket neighborhood” of 23 detached, single-family
residences with amenities such as a gravel footpath along an existing branch of “Sand Creek”
and other open and common spaces proposed to be used for passive recreation and
stormwater management. He has provided a conceptual master plan, cross sections for
roadways, sidewalks and footpaths, topographical and floodplain maps, façade renderings
and floor plans, restrictive covenants and a site plan analysis for the project.
The applicant submitted the same PUD request which was heard at the August 9, 2011
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. During that public hearing, there was a lengthy
discussion regarding whether or not the impending opening of East Garrard Road
constituted a change in area conditions. The applicant withdrew the request and has now
resubmitted for the Planning & Zoning Commission’s review and consideration.
PUD (Planned Unit Development) District Information
A. Policy for Planned Unit Developments.
1.
Purpose. Under the regulations prescribed by this ordinance, separate districts are
established for various types of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. To
encourage more creative, efficient, and aesthetically desirable design in the urban
environment, the Planned Unit Development provisions waive certain district
requirements to permit large tracts of land to be developed as integral units for
single-family, townhouse, cluster, condominium, multi-family, and other innovative
residential developments. Under certain conditions this article also permits mixed,
but compatible developments that include certain commercial and/or light industrial
uses to be included in the Planned Unit Development without requirement for a
separate zone district classification.
B. Conditions to be met by Special Plans for Planned Unit Developments.
(i) District Regulations. Every Planned Unit Development erected and maintained
under the provisions of this article shall comply with all regulations established in
this ordinance for the adjoining or surrounding districts in which the
development is located except as provided for in this article. The density
requirement for residential elements of a planned unit development may be
permitted to exceed conventional allowable density by not more than twenty-five
percent (25%) provided that all other standards mandated for a Planned Unit
Development are satisfactorily met and if the Planning Commission determines
that the site plan demonstrates sufficient rationale and provisions for such
increases.
(ii) Mixed-Use Planned Unit Developments. Any application for a mixed-use
planned unit development shall have the planned us of a minimum of sixty
percent (60%) of the gross floor area and land area of the development in
conformance with those uses permitted by right in the adjoining or surrounding
zone districts in which the development is to be located. In any predominantly
residential planned unit development, no building permit shall be issued for
commercial and/or light industrial uses or buildings until at least twenty-five
percent (25%) of the residential units have been completed.
(iii) Site plan and Improvements. A special plan for a planned unit development
shall show and there shall be provided the following:
(1) Drainage. Adequate facilities for the drainage of surface water, including
storm sewers, gutters, paving, and proper design of finished grades.
(2) Circulation and Parking. Adequate facilities for the safe and convenient
circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including walks, driveways, off-
2
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
street parking area(s), off-street loading areas (as required), and landscaped
separation spaces between pedestrian and vehicular ways.
Open Spaces. All planned unit developments shall provide for reservation of
usable open space for recreational uses, pedestrian ways, and landscape areas.
In residential areas of a planned unit development, common open space shall
comprise at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross area. Streets,
driveways, parking areas, and adjustable utility easements shall not be
considered as part of this open space.
Responsibility for Open Space. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed
as a responsibility of the city, either for maintenance or liability of the
following which shall include, but not be limited to, any private open areas,
parks, recreational facilities, and a “hold harmless” clause shall be
incorporated in the covenants running with the land to this effect.
Utilities to be Underground. Any planned unit development shall specify
that all utilities shall be constructed underground.
Size of Area. Although there is not minimum size, the area proposed for
development shall be large enough to permit and accommodate a generally
self-contained unit for the major land use category proposed. A Planned
Unit Development (PUD) shall not be granted or approved if, in the opinion
of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the granting of a PUD would have
a direct negative or adverse impact on the surrounding area. The Planning
and Zoning Commission shall utilize the procedures for amending the
Zoning Ordinance to assess the potential adverse impact of the PUD on the
surrounding area.
C. Procedures for Special Plans for Planned Unit Developments.
(1) Application for Approval. An application for approval of a planned unit
development shall be filed with the Building Official and shall contain the following
information: address, and interest of any others represented by the applicant; the
concurrence of the owner(s) of the entire land are included in the special plan and all
encumbrances of such land; evidence that the applicant and/or owners intend to
develop the land along with a written statement expressing the character of the
proposed development.
(2) Preliminary Development Plans. An application for a planned unit development is
to be accompanied by a preliminary plan which must include both maps and a
written statement. Adjacent properties impacted by the development are to be
identified. The following data may be required with the preliminary submission:
(i) Existing topography of the site.
(ii) Drainage within the project and adjacent area if impacted.
(iii) Existing and proposed land uses and existing zoning.
(iv) Existing property lines.
(v) Circulation system including walks, curb-cuts, ingress and egress drives,
driveways.
3
(vi) Parking and loading area.
(vii) Areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, playgrounds,
school sites, public and semi-public uses and common areas.
(viii) Approximate location of all buildings, structures, and improvements, including
walkways.
(ix) Graphic presentation representative of the proposed structures and
improvements.
(x) A tentative development schedule including timing and scope of any proposed
phasing.
(xi) Any proposed covenants, homeowner association agreements governing the
maintenance and continued protection of the proposed development.
D. Review Process. Upon receipt of an application for approval of a special plan for a
planned unit development, properly and completely made out, the Building Official shall
promptly transmit copies to Planning Commission members and appropriate city
departments for review and recommendations. Response from department heads shall
be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall schedule in
a timely manner (within 30 days) a preliminary review of the planned unit development
application and the applicant shall be notified of the date and time of the review. For
planned unit developments, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and
interested parties notified in the same manner as for other rezoning hearings. Following
the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall transmit its preliminary plan approval
or disapproval report to the applicant, including any conditions of approval, which may
include a performance bond.
E. Final Development Plan. In accord with the Planning Commission findings and
approvals, a final development plan shall be prepared and filed in the Building Official’s
office including all or any increment of the approved preliminary plan. The final
development plan shall be fully in accord with the approved preliminary plan and shall
be binding and shall control the issuance of permits and/or certificates.
F. Amendment or Withdrawal of the Planned Unit Development Plan. By the same
procedure by which the Planned Unit Development was originally approved, the
Planned Unit Development may be amended or withdrawn. All Planned Unit
Development changes must be in accord with the terms of this ordinance.
G. Changes in Use in Planned Unit Developments. Use of commercial and/or light
industrial buildings in a planned unit development may be changed to other uses without
further review and approval provided that they are changed to a use permitted as a use
by right in the most restrictive district in which the prior use is listed as a permitted use
by right, provided that any proposed change in use that significantly increases daily
traffic movements, and/or noise pollution, must be considered by an application to
amend the special plan.
4
H. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission in approving
or disapproving an application for a Planned Unit Development under this article may
within ten (10) days from the date of such decision, file a written request to the Mayor
and Board of Aldermen and there upon the Mayor and Board of Aldermen shall proceed
to review the proposal in the same manner prescribed for other rezoning applications.
The following uses are permitted by right in the PUD zoning district:
1. Antique store
2. Apparel and accessory store
3. Apothecary
4. Art gallery or museum
5. Bar and/or cocktail lounge
6. Barber shop or beauty shop
7. Bicycle sales and/or repair
8. Book store
9. Camera and photographic supplies
10. Candy, nut & confectionary store
11. Clinic, dental or medical
12. Dairy product sales
13. Delicatessen
14. Drug store
15. Dry cleaning or laundry pick-up station
16. Dry goods store
17. Dwelling: single-family, zero lot line and cluster development, two-family, three
and four family, multiple-family, townhouse on individually platted lots
18. Floral shop
19. Fruit store
20. Gift shop
21. Grocery store, retail
22. Home occupation
23. Hotels/conference center
24. Interior decorating shop
25. Jewelry store
26. Leather or luggage store
27. Liquor store, package (for consumption off-premises)
28. Music store
29. Name plate, unlighted, 1 square foot in area
30. Newsstand
31. Office
32. Optician
33. Public utilities
34. Radio and television broadcasting studio
35. Record and tape shop
36. Restaurant
5
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Seafood store, retail
Sporting goods store, retail
Studio for professional work or teaching fine arts, such as photography, speech or drama
Tanning salon
Tobacco store
Toy store
Video store, retail
The following uses are allowed by conditional use in the PUD zoning district:
1. Bakery, retail
2. Bed and breakfast inn
3. Church or place of worship
4. Congregate housing (elderly housing)
5. Electronic repair shop
6. Health club
7. Hardware store, retail
8. Hobby supply store
9. Hospital
10. Locksmith
11. Pet shop
12. Photographic studio and/or processing
13. Picture framing and/or mirror silvering
14. Pressing, altering, and repairing of wearing apparel and tailor shop
15. Public buildings; does not include airports or correctional facilities
16. Radio and television store and repair shop
17. Recreational facilities
18. Reducing salon
19. Restaurant serving alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption
20. Restaurant, fast-food
21. Schools, private
22. Theater, indoor
The table below provides the zoning and land uses adjacent to the subject property:
Direction
North
East
South
West
Zoning
R-1
R-1
R-E
R-1
Current Use
Single-family detached homes
Vacant undeveloped land
Ten property owners of record within 160 feet of the subject property were notified directly
by mail of the PUD request. A public hearing notice was published in the Starkville Daily
News on Friday, August 26, 2011 and a placard was posted on the property concurrent with
publication of the notice. As of this date, the Planning Office has received only one letter in
6
support of the PUD request from adjacent property owner Jack Day, and it has been
included with this staff report.
REZONING ANALYSIS
Statutory Compliance:
Per Title 17, Chapter 1 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 and Appendix A, Article IV, Section
A of the City of Starkville’s Code of Ordinances, the Official Zoning Map may be amended
only when one or more of the following conditions prevail:
1. Error. There is a manifest error in the ordinance and a public need to correct the error.
There are no errors with either the ordinance or zoning map in need of correction.
2. Change in conditions. Changed or changing conditions in an existing area, or in the
planning area generally, or the increased or increasing need for commercial or
manufacturing sites or additional subdivision of open land into urban building sites make
a change in the ordinance necessary and desirable, and in accord with the public need for
orderly and harmonious growth.
The construction and opening of East Garrard Road on August 22, 2011, which provides
a major east-west roadway connector on the north side of town, is a significant and longanticipated change in area conditions.
Other changes include the extension of MS Highway 12 East, the construction of the US
Highway 82 Bypass and the closing of the former Pilkington Trailer Park, all of which
have contributed to ongoing changes in the area.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezoning to PUD would generally
be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies regarding Medium Density land uses
found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and more specifically, encouraging detached, singlefamily residential units on small lots, located near major attractions such as colleges and
major highway interchanges, and the inclusion of parks, open space and other passive
recreational amenities developed as part of the project. The Transportation Facilities section
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan states in part, “the city should permit, and indeed,
encourage narrower local streets in certain areas, and investigate the use of roundabouts and
other traffic calming devices” as has been proposed by the applicant.
Land Use Compatibility: The proposed rezoning from R-1 to PUD would allow land uses
which would be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The applicant is
proposing a compact development of detached, single-family residential units with a
proposed net density of 4.59 units per acre on a site which was formerly a trailer park. The
surrounding area consists of properties zoned R-1 (Single Family) and R-E (Residential
Estate) which are classified as Low Density Residential by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
For comparison, Low Density Residential allows a gross density of 1—4 dwelling units per
acre, Medium Density Residential (R-2 and R-3 zonings) allows a gross density of 4—8
dwelling units per acre, and High Density Residential (R-4 and R-5 zonings) allows a gross
density of 8—15 dwelling units per acre. Table 32 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan also
7
contains a note stating “higher densities could be achieved through the Planned Unit
Development process.”
The PUD zoning classification does not mandate a minimum lot size; instead, it requires
open space for common use, encouraging creative and innovative design. For comparison
purposes, if the same 5.01-acre parcel were to remain zoned R-1 which requires a minimum
lot size of 10,000 square feet, a developer would assume that approximately 22.22 detached
single-family residential dwelling units could be built on the site. However, this would create
a net density of 4.43 dwelling units per acre, exceeding the maximum 4 dwelling units per
acre, allowed per Table 32 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This would force the
developer to reduce the number of dwelling units to 20 to stay below the maximum 4
dwelling units per acre with a 3.99 dwelling units per acre, based on 20 ÷ 5.01= 3.99. And
keep in mind that this proposal would probably not include any common area, open space
or other amenities, which are required for a PUD.
Changed Conditions: The construction and opening of East Garrard Road, which
provides a major east-west roadway connector on the north side of town, is a significant and
long-anticipated change in area conditions. Other changes include the extension of MS
Highway 12 East, the construction of the US Highway 82 Bypass and the closing of the
former Pilkington Trailer Park, all of which have contributed to ongoing changes in the area.
Adequate Public Facilities: The subject property is currently not being served with City
utilities. Acquisition of the right-of-way and construction of the new roadway could provide
direct utility access to this once-remote section of the former trailer park property. City staff
members and utility providers will need to determine the most efficient and effective means
to extend utilities to this particular site.
Natural Environment: A portion of the subject property lies within the 100-year
floodplain, which will require submittal of a separate “Floodplain Development Permit”
application. The applicant has options available to develop the property and will need to
comply with the City’s adopted floodplain ordinances, by submitting a floodplain
development permit application prior to or at the same time as a detailed infrastructure plan,
site plan or subdivision plat.
Economic Effects: The taxable value of the subject property, which is currently
undeveloped, would significantly increase, adding to the City’s tax base. The development
of the subject property would provide construction jobs for tradesmen in the community
and call for the purchase of building and construction materials from local suppliers.
Orderly Development: The applicant has provided a conceptual master plan, along with
other details of the proposed project. The conceptual master plan was reviewed by the
City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) on July 20, 2011 and a copy of those
comments is included with this staff report. However, a detailed and thorough site and
infrastructure plan review by the DRC will be required if the PUD request were to be
approved by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
8
Public Need: The applicant seeks to fill a need for detached, single-family residences in
close proximity to MSU, MS Highway 12 East and the US Highway 82 Bypass at a pricepoint which he feels that the local market demands.
PUD SITE PLAN ANALYSIS
Appendix A, Article VII, Section O(C)(2) of the City’s Code of Ordinances, provides that
the following items be addressed for planned unit developments:
1. Existing topography of the site.
The applicant has proved a topographical map as well as a floodplain overlay for the
proposed development. The applicant will be required to develop the site in compliance with
the City’s floodplain management ordinances.
2. Drainage within the project and adjacent area, if impacted.
The applicant has identified area on the conceptual master plan for stormwater
management. He will be required to follow the City’s stormwater ordinance and submit
stormwater calculations and proposed facility design which comply with the City’s
stormwater ordinances in order for the City Engineer to approve.
3. Existing and proposed land uses and existing zoning.
The applicant states in his analysis that he is proposing a development which will encourage
creative, efficient and aesthetically pleasing design in an urban environment. The proposed
density (4.59) will be very much in line with Low Density Residential land use
classification, which allows a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre.
4. Existing property lines.
Several maps are included with this staff report showing the property lines of existing
properties, including a survey, locator map, parcel map and an aerial map.
5. Circulation system including walks, curb cuts, ingress/egress drives and driveways.
The applicant has provided a conceptual master plan which provides many passive
recreational amenities, including sidewalks, gravel footpaths along the creek and even a
footbridge crossing the creek. The Transportation Facilities section of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan states in part, “the city should permit, and indeed, encourage narrower
local streets in certain areas, and investigate the use of roundabouts and other traffic
calming devices.”
The applicant is proposing 24-foot wide streets (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) in lieu of the
31 feet minimally required, 4-foot wide sidewalks in lieu of the 5 feet minimally required,
and an overall public right-of-way width of 42 feet in the street cross-section diagram, in
lieu of the minimum 50 feet required. City staff has recommended acceptance of this
proposal for dimensional reduction, so long as the street and other facilities are built to City
specifications, as allowed by Appendix B, Article V, Section 7 for innovative development
design.
9
6. Parking and loading areas.
The applicant is proposing 3 outdoor parking spaces per residence and has provided a
turnaround which will accommodate the Fire Department’s ladder truck. The Sanitation
and Environmental Services Department has indicated that the development will be
suitable for curbside collection of trash and recyclables.
7. Areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, playgrounds, school
sites, public and semi-public uses and common areas.
The applicant has provided approximately 1.89 acres of green space which exceeds the
minimum amount required for the 5.01-acre project. Parks and common areas are
proposed, as well as sidewalks and gravel footpaths along the creek for passive recreational
use by the residents.
8. Approximate location of all buildings, structures, and improvements, including
walkways.
The applicant has provided a conceptual master plan showing proposed streets, sidewalks,
building footprints, parking areas and other improvements to the site. He has also
provided façade renderings and floor plans of the proposed structures.
9. Graphic presentation representative of the proposed structures and improvements.
The applicant has provided façade renderings and floor plans of the proposed structures, as
well as a cross section for the gravel footpath along the creek.
10. A tentative development schedule including timing and scope of any proposed phasing.
The applicant is proposing two phases for the development. Phase 1 infrastructure is
expected to be completed in early 2012. An 18—24 month building period is expected in
the first phase, immediately followed by Phase 2.
11. Any proposed covenants or homeowner association agreement governing the
The applicant has provided a set of proposed restrictive covenants which will be required to
include provisions for the maintenance of common areas and the City Attorney’s standard
hold-harmless indemnification clause.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon review of the proposed rezoning application, the Planning & Zoning Commission’s
recommendation for approval to amend the Official Zoning Map Designation of
approximately 5.01 acres of land located on the north side of East Garrard Road from R-1
(Single Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) would be based on the findings of fact
and conclusions of this staff report dated September 13, 2011, that the rezoning request is
consistent with Title 17, Chapter 1 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 and more specifically,
with Appendix A, Article IV, Section A(2) of the City’s Code of Ordinances, based on
changing conditions in the area and the following conditions:
10
1. The applicant shall submit a preliminary plat which shall include detailed infrastructure
plan to the City’s Development Review Committee within 6 months of the PUD
approval by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
2. The applicant shall submit an application to the City’s Board of Adjustments & Appeals
for the dimensional variances requested for the internal streets, sidewalks and proposed
right-of-ways, prior to presentation of a preliminary plat and infrastructure plan to the
Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Aldermen.
3. The applicant shall provide restrictive covenants that include provisions for the
maintenance of common areas, especially the areas along and adjacent to the creek, and
the City Attorney’s standard hold-harmless indemnification clause.
4. The applicant shall be required to submit a “Floodplain Development Permit”
application form with the preliminary plat submittal package and comply with the City’s
adopted floodplain management ordinance.
5. Planning staff shall provide corrected net density calculations so the staff report is
accurate and correct. (see below)
DENSITY
Recommended gross density ranges are provided in Table 32 of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, beginning on page 87. The table includes a note which states “higher densities could
be achieved through the Planned Unit Development process. No reference is made to “net”
density in the Comprehensive Plan. A PUD has no density range provided in Table 32, so
for comparison purposes, the placement of 23 detached, single-family dwelling units on 5.01
acres, provides an overall density of 4.59 dwelling units per acre. If the roadway acreage,
estimated to be 1.2 acres, were to be subtracted from the 5.01 acres, approximately 3.81
“developable” acres would remain. If the 23 proposed units are divided by the estimated
3.81 remaining acres, there would be a “net” density of approximately 6.04 dwelling units per
acre for the development.
The areas adjacent to the subject property allow a maximum or “gross” density of 4 dwelling
units per acre. If it is assumed that approximately 20% of the allowable dwelling units could
be “lost” due to the construction of infrastructure (roads, stormwater retention, etc.), it
could be estimated that there would be a “net” density of approximately 3.2 dwelling units
per acre.
Art. VII, Sec. O(B)(i) of the PUD regulations of the City’s Code of Ordinances reads in part:
The density requirement for residential elements of a planned unit development may be
permitted to exceed allowable density by not more than 25 percent, provided that all other
standards mandated for a planned unit development are satisfactorily met and if the
11
planning and zoning commission determines that the site plan demonstrates sufficient
rationale and provisions for such increase.
Art. V, Sec. 6(5) of the City’s Subdivision Regulations reads in part:
The planned unit development shall indicate the proposed maximum dwelling unit density
per acre, not including streets…
12
Michael D. Kraker
P.O. Box 1306
Starkville, MS 39760
662-324-1414
August 29, 2011
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Member,
As you know we have resubmitted our request for a zoning change on the E. Garrard Road
property. The road has now opened and we are confident that there is enough evidence to
support the “change in the area” requirement for rezoning. We feel that the opening of the Hwy.
82 bypass, the closing of Pilkington Trailer Park, and the opening of the new E. Garrard Road are
all contributing factors to the change in the area.
We are very excited about our plans for a new “pocket neighborhood” on the 5 acres that we are
asking to have rezoned into a PUD. The current trend in many urban areas is for more common
“green space” with smaller lots. We know that there is a demand in Starkville for the type of
homes that we are proposing to build.
Several websites that you might be interested in looking at that we used as inspiration in our
planning are:
www.Pocket-neighborhoods.net
www.rosschapin.com
www.cottagecompany.com
We currently have the property (19 acres that used to be Pilkington Trailer Park) under contract
pending approval of the zoning change. We feel that there are many possibilities that would be
less attractive under the current zoning. Current zoning would allow approximately 75 lots on the
19 acre tract. We strongly feel that the plan that we are requesting to develop is far more
appealing than what is allowable under the current R-1 zoning.
We would greatly appreciate your support. We hope that you agree with us that this “Pocket
Neighborhood” will be a very positive new addition to the north side of Starkville.
Please call us if you have any questions.
Michael and Gayle Kraker
662-324-1414 (office)
662-312-8666 (Gayle’s cell)
PUD SITE PLAN ANALYSIS
Appendix A, Article VII, Section O(C)(2) of the City’s Code of Ordinances, provides that
the following items be addressed for planned unit developments:
1. Existing topography of the site.
The subject property has a gently rolling topography as seen by the contour lines
on the attached topography map. A small portion of this lot in the southeast
corner is located within a Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area This portion will
be part of the water detention area. Several lots are in a Zone X (between 100500 year) that does not require flood insurance.
2. Drainage within the project and adjacent area, if impacted.
The site plan has identified a stormwater detention area on the preliminary site
plan and will be required to provide detailed stormwater calculations and
proposed facility design for the City Engineer to review and approve during the
infrastructure site plan review.
3. Existing and proposed land uses and existing zoning.
Parcel is currently zoned R-1. In order to encourage more creative, efficient, and
aesthetically desirable design in the urban environment a change to a residential
Planned Unit Development is being requested.
4. Existing property lines.
See attached map which identified existing property lines and adjacent property
owner’s names and addresses.
5. Circulation system including walks, curb cuts, ingress/egress drives and driveways.
See attached site plan design.
6. Parking and loading areas.
Three parking areas are provided for each dwelling. Access and turnaround
areas have been provided which meet the requirements of the City’s Fire
Department.
7. Areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, playgrounds, school
sites, public and semi-public uses and common areas.
The applicant has indicated on the preliminary site plan that approximately 1.87
acres of the 5 acre subject property is proposed as open space. This exceeds the
city requirement of 1.25 acres. A detailed landscaping plan and materials list has
not yet been determined, but will be provided for the infrastructure site plan
review.
8. Approximate location of all buildings, structures, and improvements, including
walkways.
The applicant has provided a preliminary site plan showing the locations of
proposed buildings, parking and other improvements, including surface parking,
a stormwater detention area, sidewalks and recreational amenities to be provided
on-site.
9. Graphic presentation representative of the proposed structures and improvements.
See attached “preliminary elevations” pages showing the proposed facades as
well as the proposed parking areas on the proposed site plan..
10. A tentative development schedule including timing and scope of any proposed
phasing.
Site development to begin immediately upon zoning change and acquisition of
property. Two phases are planned. Phase 1 infastructure should be completed in
early 2012. 18-24 month buildout is expected in first phase with phase 2
immediately following.
11. Any proposed covenants or homeowner association agreement governing the
See attached restrictive covenants.
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR
THE COTTAGES AT CREEKSIDE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT that the undersigned, Michael D. Kraker and
Gayle R. Kraker, being the owners as of the date of this instrument of a certain tract or parcel of land
situated in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, do hereby place and impose upon said property restrictive
covenants limiting and defining the use thereof as hereinafter set forth, which covenants shall run
with the land, for the period and under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT–SITE PLAN
B. LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE
No building, fence or other structure shall be erected, placed or altered on the above
described property unless approved by the Architectural Control Committee which is composed of
the officers and owners of The Cottages at Creekside . All building plans must be approved by the
Architectural Control Committee and each set of plans must contain a lot site plan; building plans
And specifications; and a detailed landscaped plan. No exceptions shall be made except as
authorized in writing by the Architectural Control Committee.
C. LOT USE
The developer has the right to build any structure allowed pursuant to PUD zoning. No
temporary structures shall be allowed, specifically trailers, mobile homes, manufactured housing,
shacks, etc.
D. DWELLING SIZE AND DESIGN
No dwelling shall be permitted on any lot of a side less than 1,000 square feet of heated area.
Multi-story dwellings shall have a ground floor heated area exclusive of open porches, storage or
garages of not less than 600 square feet. No residence on any lot shall exceed two stories in height.
E. DWELLING LOCATION
No dwelling shall be located any nearer than 10.0 feet to the front of the street curb; nearer
than 5.0 feet to the rear lot line; or nearer than 5.0 feet from dwelling to dwelling without the prior
written consent of The Cottages of Creekside. Steps, appendages or the portion of any eaves
extending more than 30 inches from the exterior wall shall be considered as part of the dwelling in
determining whether or not the minimum set back provisions have been met. There shall be reserved
along the boundary of any lot adjacent to the setback an overhang and drainage easement not to
exceed 20 inches.
F. NUISANCES AND NONPERMITTED ACTIVITIES
No noxious or offensive activities shall be carried on upon any lot, and no owner or occupant
of any lot shall carry on any activity which may become an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood. No abandoned or inoperative vehicles or equipment shall be allowed to remain on
any lot for a period in excess of 30 days. Each lot owner shall be responsible for the maintenance
and upkeep of their property specifically including but not limited to the maintenance of all lawn
areas and the exterior of all improvements. Lawn maintenance may be included in Home Owner’s
Association dues.
G. COMMON AND ROADWAY EASEMENT
Each property owner is granted a permanent and perpetual non-exclusive easement for the
use of the designated common area as shown on Site Plan together with a permanent and
perpetual non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across the roadway area as shown
on the Site Plan. The undersigned developer does hereby agree that the City of Starkville and its
agents and employees by and through its authorized agents, officials, and employees, have all
necessary consent and permission to travel on the streets and private ways of the described property.
,.
H. COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE EXPENSE
Each property owner shall be obligated to participate equally with all other property owners
with the payment of all reasonable and necessary maintenance expense for the
common area, to include the nature trails and landscaped areas, as set forth in the Site Plan in
proportion to their ownership interest.
1. ASSESSMENT FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
Each owner of property encumbered by these restrictive covenants shall by virtue of their
ownership be a member of the “The Cottages at Creekside” Home Owner's Association and shall,
through said association, be assessed with and pay an amount to be determined by said Association
necessary for yard, and related maintenance.
J. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
Section 1. Purpose, Powers and Duties of the Architectural Control Committee.
From the execution date of these Covenants until all Units in all planned Phases have been
fully developed, permanently improved, and sold to permanent residents, the Architectural Control
Committee shall consist of the Developer. However, upon the completion of lot development , the
Developer shall serve as the Architectural Control Committee only with respect to its function related
to new residence construction and Unit improvement in connection thereof, and the elected Board of
Directors of the Home Owner's Association shall function in all other capacities. Upon the sale by
Developer to a Purchaser of the last Unit of the last Phase and the construction and completion of a
permanent residence thereof, the Developer shall cease functioning as the Architectural Control
Committee, turning its functions over to the Board of Directors of the Home Owner's Association.
Section 2. Meetings
The Architectural Control Committee shall hold such meetings as required or allowed for the
Board of Directors of the Developer.
Section 3. Action of Members of the Architectural Control Committee.
Any member of the Architectural Control Committee may be authorized by the Architectural
Control Committee to exercise the full authority of the Architectural Control Committee with respect
to all matters over which the Architectural Control Committee has authority. Any decision by said
authorized member will be, however, subject to review and modification by the Architectural
Control Committee on its own motion or on appeal by the applicant to the Architectural Control
Committee as provided herein. Five (5) days written notice of the decision of such member shall
be given to any applicant for an approval permit or authorization. The applicant may, within ten (10)
days after receipt of notice of any decision which he deems to be unsatisfactory, file a written request
to have the matter in question reviewed by the Architectural Control Committee. Such requests shall
be reviewed promptly by the Architectural Control Committee. The decision of the Architectural
Control Committee with respect to such matter shall be final and binding.
K. ENFORCEMENT
The enforcement of these covenants shall be available jointly to the Grantor and any property
owner for both injunctive relief and/or damages. By acceptance of any deed to the property
encumbered by these covenants, the Grantee agrees that in the event enforcement of these covenants
becomes necessary as a result of a default by any property owner, the non-defaulting property owner
in addition to all other remedies shall be entitled to recover from the defaulting property owner all
reasonable and necessary litigation expense including but not limited to attorney's fees and court
costs.
L. SEVERABILITY
Invalidation of anyone of these restrictive covenants by judgment or court decree shall in no
way affect any of the other provisions contained herein, which other covenants shall remain in full
force and effect.
M. TERM
These covenants may be modified exclusively by the developer until such time as
construction has been completed on all lots. These covenants shall be binding on all persons
owning or occupying any portion of the above described property for a period of twenty-five (25)
years from the date of this conveyance after which the restrictive covenants hereby imposed shall
be automatically extended for successive periods of seven (7) years unless an instrument filed by a
majority of the then owners of the lots in the above described tract of land has been recorded,
agreeing to change said restrictive covenants in whole or in part.
CITY OF STARKVILLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE LOCATOR MAP
Case # PD 11-03
Ward # 5
Date of Public Hearing: Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Ev
a
ns
Pe
rk i
ns
S tr
ee
t
Trotter Lane
Pr
es
sl e
yD
Old
We
st
Poin
t
Roa
d
Ro
se
r iv
e
Shaded Area Indicates Subject Property
.
Not to Scale
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
CO M MIT TE E ME M B ER CO M ME NT S
TO:
Neil Couvillion, Applicant
FROM:
SUBJECT: PD 11-02: conceptual site plan review of “Kraker Property” PUD for a public hearing tentatively
scheduled for August 9, 2011; located in an R-1zoning on a portion of the former “Pilkington
Trailer Park” on the north side of East Garrard Road, west of Old West Point Road in Ward 5
DATE:
July 20, 2011
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following information is provided to assist you in the preparation of your proposal.
Please provide plans and other related items for review by the City’s Development Review
Committee (composed of staff members from the various City Departments and area utility
providers) by the close of business Tuesday in order to be scheduled for staff review on
Wednesday of the following week. A completed and signed checklist is required for
each submittal to the Development Review Committee. These checklists can be found
on the City’s website at www.cityofstarkville.org. Future submittals without the completed
and signed checklist will not be accepted or will be held until the required documentation is
submitted. For ease of secondary review and an expedited approval process, it is
suggested to provide a letter with the re-submittal indicating how all comments have
been addressed. Please feel free to contact the appropriate committee member directly to
discuss in detail the comments provided below.
Atmos Energy: Wade Shultice, Project Specialist
662-323-2742
[email protected]
1. No conflict. A 2 “ PE gas main is located along the south side of Pilkington Park Drive
(Boyd Road). A 3” PE gas main is also located along the west side of Old West Point
Road. Natural gas is available pursuant to the Service Extension Policy on file with the
Mississippi Public Service Commission.
Building & Planning Department: Ben Griffith, City Planner
662-323-8012, ext. 119
[email protected]
1. Per BOA action on July 19th, the newly constructed road is to be named “East Garrard
Road.” Please revise plans to reflect this.
2. Please provide a note on the face of the preliminary/conceptual PUD site plan
addressing the dimensions of the proposed internal roadways and whether or not they
are intended to be dedicated to the City.
3. Need to verify that density is 4.59 dwelling units per acre, based on 23 DU ÷ 5.01 AC.
Please add a note onto the conceptual plan which includes this information.
4. It appears that a portion of the subject property may be located within a floodplain area.
Please refer to Panel #156 of the City’s adopted FIRM maps.
5. Is any type of fence, wall or other screening proposed along East Garrard Road?
6. Please provide any covenants for staff to review ASAP, making sure to include
provisions for long-term maintenance of common areas, especially creek bank areas.
7. Please provide more details regarding phasing of the project.
8. The 11 items listed in Section C(2) of the PUD regulations detail are what needs to be
submitted for P&Z review and BOA approval. My staff report will address each of
these 11 items so the more information which can be provided in your “PUD Site Plan
Analysis” and included in the staff report, the better for the public hearing.
9. Please understand that a detailed infrastructure plan review by the DRC will be required
upon approval of the preliminary/conceptual PUD site plan by the BOA.
10. If deemed appropriate, Planning staff will need 22 copies of the revised
preliminary/conceptual PUD site plan for the P&Z and BOA meetings; will also need
PDF files of the plat for the public meeting “e-packets.” I would suggest delivering all
22 copies, as well as PDF’s, no later than 5:00 PM on Friday, July 29th to avoid any delay
in placement onto public meeting agendas.
11. Tentatively scheduled for the August 9th P&Z meeting. Publishing of legal ad, mailing of
notification letters and posting of subject property scheduled for Friday, July 22nd.
Engineering Department: Edward Kemp, PE, City Engineer
662-323-2525, ext. 111
[email protected]
1. Please provide the radii of the cul-de-sac turn around.
2. Please provide a roadway typical section complete with curb and gutter dimensions, grass
strip dimensions, sidewalk, ROW, etc.
3. Please provide ROW dimension on plans. City standard is 50’.
4. Please provide proposed road names.
5. May require a temporary turn around at the end of phase 1- will address this in
infrastructure plans.
6. Is the property located in a floodplain?
7. Please provide a detail or typical section of the “natural” path along the creek.
8. It would be more consistent with the sidewalk ordinance for the path paralleling the
creek to extend to the NW property corner as well as the SE property corner.
Additionally, a future connection to the north, approximately where the bridges are
proposed, would be appropriate for future tie-in.
9. A full set of infrastructure plans will be required pending PUD approval.
10. There is one lot that appears to be too close to the creek and the creek bank actually
touches the building footprint. It is recommended to revise this lot in some way to
provide more separation to prevent long-term maintenance issues.
Fire Department: Mark McCurdy, Fire Marshall
662-323-2962, ext. 21 [email protected]
1. Hydrant Locations?
2. Turning radius shall be a minimum of 28’.
3. Cul-de-sac on the northwest shall meet the minimum City requirements (96’ diameter
and turning radius minimum 28’).
4. Street width shall be a minimum of 26’ width.
2
MetroCast: Mitch Douglas, Plant Manager
662-323-1615, ext. 17 [email protected]
1. no comments provided…
Police Department: David Lindley, Chief
662-323-2700
[email protected]
1. No objections as currently proposed.
Public Services Department: Doug Devlin, Director
662-324-4011, ext. 128
[email protected]
1. Water and sewer service is currently unavailable at the proposed site, per Water & Sewer
Department Superintendent. Availability and connection points to be determined at a
later date.
2. Easements will be required for water and sewer lines when locations have been
determined.
Sanitation & Environmental Services Department: Sharon Boyd, Department Head
662-323-2652
[email protected]
1. Suitable for curb-side pick-up of trash and recyclables.
2. Will need to verify that Sanitation Dept vehicles can access all proposed roadways.
3. Execution of Sanitation Dept’s standard hold-harmless indemnification shall be required
prior to final approval of PUD site plan, unless proposed roadways are to be dedicated
to the City.
Starkville Electric Department: Jason Horner, System Engineer
662-323-3294
[email protected]
1. Utility easement will need to be provided that DOES NOT contain the sidewalk. 10’
utility easement is already crowded without the inclusion of a minimum 5’ wide
sidewalk.
2. Proposed landscaping (trees) on every lot line interferes with future underground
electrical layout. Transformers, pedestals, and junction cabinets will be placed on lot
lines which is customary in all SED new installations.
3. Will park and common areas need to be illuminated? Trail along creek will be difficult to
illuminate due to the length as well as its’ remote location.
4. Estimated time until construction?
3
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Melanie Mitchell
[email protected]
Kraker Development-Cottages at Creekside
Monday, September 12, 2011 4:41:19 PM
Ben, I would like to let you know that as Realtors, we support the development that Mike Kraker is
trying to get rezoned. There is a definite need for the type houses that he plans to build there. The
price range is affordable and he has had tremendous success with Camden Place and finishing out
Robert’s Cove. From what I understand, if he doesn’t get this rezoned that the other buyers behind him
are planning to do an income based project called Reed Place. I don’t think that this is the place to
build that and this location is better suited for what the Kraker’s will do. Mike builds a quality house at
a price point that we desperately need so I urge you to please consider this at the meeting tomorrow
night. Melanie Mitchell
Melanie Mitchell, ABR, CRS, GRI
Principal Broker/Co-Owner
Prudential Starkville Properties
100 Russell Street, Suite 19
662-324-0037
888-324-0037
fax-662-324-1774
www.PrudentialStarkville.com
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Starkville, Mississippi held its regularly scheduled meeting
at 5:30 PM in the Building Department on the second floor of City Hall at 101 E. Lampkin Street, Starkville,
Mississippi. Present were Commissioners Dora Herring, James Hicks, Jerry Emison, Jason Walker, Jeremy
Murdock, Ira Loveless and John Moore. After a brief discussion with the City Attorney and Commission
Chairman, Commissioner Loveless excused himself from the meeting and did not return. Attending the
Commissioners were City Attorney Chris Latimer, City Planner Ben Griffith, Assistant City Planner Pamela
Daniel and Recording Secretary Bill Green.
AN ORDER APPROVING THE WRITTEN AGENDA
The Commission considered the matter of approval of the written agenda dated September 13, 2011.
Commissioner Murdock made a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Walker and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the agenda as
presented.
AN ORDER APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 9, 2011 MEETING
The Commission considered the matter of approval of the minutes of the August 9, 2011 meeting. After
discussion and upon the motion of Commissioner Herring, seconded by Commissioner Walker, the
Commission voted unanimously to approve said minutes with a minor revision. Commissioner Murdock
abstained from voting since he did not attend the last meeting.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Emison asked if any member of the public cared to address the Commission, stating that there
were two public hearings on the agenda and comments regarding those items would be called for at the
appropriate time. No comments were received.
A PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED BY MR. MICHAEL KRAKER FOR APPROVAL OF
A PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
EAST GARRARD ROAD IN WARD 5
There came before the Commission item #PD 11-03: a request by Mr. Michael Kraker for approval of a
zoning change from R-1 (Single Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for approximately 5.01 acres
of land, located in the southwest corner of the former “Pilkington Trailer Park” on the north side of East
Garrard Road, west of Old West Point Road, in Ward 5.
The City Planner read a brief introduction of the item, asking if any of the Commissioners had been
contacted by anyone regarding the request. Commissioner Moore stated that he had received a letter and
Commissioner Herring stated that she had received a letter and several phone calls. The City Attorney asked
if this would in any way influence their ability to render an unbiased and objective decision and both
answered that it would not.
Page 1 of 5
Mr. Michael Kraker, Mrs. Gayle Kraker and Mr. Neil Couvillion presented the request, providing a postersized display board with a conceptual layout of the project and sample photographs of single-family
residences.
Mr. Kraker stated that when East Garrard Road officially opened, he decided to resubmit the PUD request
which he withdrew at the August 9th P&Z meeting. He then provided a brief overview of the proposed
project and offered to answer any questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Herring stated that the density was much higher than the 25% increase allowed by the PUD
regulations and felt that 12 or 13 units would the estimated amount which would be allowed under the
current R-1 zoning. She also cited concerns about landscaping, greenery, restrictive covenants, parking,
interior square footage and whether or not the houses would be two-story or not.
Mrs. Kraker replied that the project would be attractive and include amenities and features not required in an
R-1 zoning district and asked if the criteria had been met for a change in area conditions and public need.
Chairman Emison asked the City Attorney if these issues were required to be addressed at this time and
whether or not the Commission needed to consider the proposed PUD plan as part of the rezoning.
The City Attorney answered that the threshold issues for rezoning must be considered and whether or not
the proposed PUD plan meets City specifications. He stated that the applicant should show statistics of
public need regarding demand for houses at the targeted price point.
Ms. Melanie Mitchell of Prudential Realty stated that she supported the development and that it was exactly
the type of home that generates the most demand in the area: smaller homes on smaller lots for easy care and
maintenance for young professionals and retirees. She added that a search of area listings yielded only three
homes in Starkville available at this price point.
Ms. Leigh Ann Evans of Coldwell Banker Realty stated that she lives on Boyd Drive to the northeast of the
proposed development and was strongly in favor of it. She stated that the project would provide the size and
price of homes for which there is a strong demand in Starkville and that she often received complaints from
buyers about the lack of homes available in that category. Ms. Evans stated that she had not received any
complaints about a lack of parking in Camden Place or Roberts Cove where the Krakers have been building
homes. She stated that it was very difficult to find quality homes in Starkville in the $150,000 to $160,000
price range and that there was much demand for homes in this price range from alumni who don’t want a
large yard to maintain when they come to Starkville for football games and other athletic events.
A lengthy discussion took place between the Krakers and Commissioner Herring regarding the size, look and
construction of the homes proposed for the development, and Chairman Emison reminded everyone not to
get hung up on the architectural details of the project, but to focus on the land use decision at hand.
An even lengthier discussion took place among the applicants and several Commissioners regarding density
of the proposed development and the surrounding zoning classifications of R-1 and R-E, both of which are
considered to be “Low Density Residential” by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Emison then opened the floor for public comments.
Dr. Greg Ibendahl of 200 Presley Place stated that he was originally opposed to the use, but that he had
second thoughts, and asked if it would prevent lower income homes from being built. He also expressed
concerns with the proposed density, how it would affect the surrounding areas, and whether or not the
project met the City’s requirements, suggesting that the developer take out two or three houses to provide
more open space.
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Taylor Adams of 106 Bay Meadows Drive expressed support for the proposal and stated that he and
others in the Bay Meadows subdivision had provided letters of support to the Krakers, adding that they
thought it would be a welcome addition to the north side of town.
Mrs. Marnita Henderson of 208 Pinebrook Road asked how wide the road would be, whether it would be
private or public and if sidewalks were included.
Mrs. Jane Loveless of 108 Trotter Lane stated that she was opposed to the request and did not see any need
for this type of development or any change in the area because of the road.
Chairman Emison asked if there were any additional public comments and seeing none, closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Herring had questions regarding density calculations and several of the Commissioners took
part in another lengthy discussion on the subject.
Commissioners Murdock and Walker discussed the merits of creative and innovative design for PUDs and
how the Kraker’s proposal met the criteria.
Chairman Emison directed the Commissioners attention to the four conditions of approval provided by
Planning staff, if a motion were to be made.
Commissioner Herring stated that she still did not understand the net density calculations and another
lengthy discussion ensued among the Commissioners.
Chairman Emison stated that he needed a motion, one way or another, and that it needed to include a finding
of fact regarding change in the area, public need and the conditions provided by Planning staff.
After discussion, Commissioner Walker made a motion to recommend approval of the request to the Mayor
and Board of Aldermen, based on the change in area conditions as provided in the staff report dated
September 8, 2011, public need as presented at the public hearing, and subject to the four conditions
provided by Planning staff in the staff report, adding a fifth condition to correct the net density calculation
for the Board packet, as follows:
1. The applicant shall submit a preliminary plat which shall include detailed infrastructure plans to the City’s
Development Review Committee within 6 months of the PUD approval by the Mayor and Board of
Aldermen.
2. The applicant shall submit an application to the City’s Board of Adjustments & Appeals for the
dimensional variances requested for the internal streets, sidewalks and proposed right-of-ways, prior to
presentation of a preliminary plat and infrastructure plan to the Planning & Zoning Commission and
Board of Aldermen.
3. The applicant shall provide restrictive covenants that include provisions for the maintenance of common
areas, especially the areas along and adjacent to the creek, and the City Attorney’s standard hold-harmless
indemnification clause.
4. The applicant shall be required to submit a “Floodplain Development Permit” application form with the
preliminary plat submittal package and comply with the City’s adopted floodplain management ordinance.
5. Planning staff shall provide corrected net density calculations so the staff report is accurate and correct.
Page 3 of 5
The motion was duly seconded by Commissioner Murdock. There was no further discussion and
Commissioners Walker, Murdock and Hicks voted in favor of the request. Commissioner Moore voted
against and Commissioner Herring abstained. The City Attorney stated that a simple majority would be
required to approve the request and Chairman Emison voted in the affirmative. The final vote was tabulated
as follows: 4 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention.
A PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED BY BONDS OF LOVE MINISTRY TO ALLOW A PLACE
OF WORSHIP IN A C-2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT AT 305 DR. MARTIN
LUTHER KING, JR. DRIVE IN WARD 5
There came before the Commission item #CU 11-06: A request by Bonds of Love Ministry to allow a place
of worship in a C-2 (General Business) zoning district at 305 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, in the former
“Precision Photo” building, in Ward 5. The Assistant City Planner then read a brief introduction of the item.
Ms. Glenda Butler presented the request, giving a brief overview of the ministry, stating that purchase of the
property was contingent upon approval of the conditional use request. She stated that a multi-year parking
easement agreement allowing access and parking in the parking lot of the adjacent shopping center was
included in the deed.
Chairman Emison asked if the Commission needed to consider the length of the easement agreement and the
City Attorney answered that the Commission should consider what was presented to the Commissioners at
the present time.
After asking three times, and seeing that no members of the public cared to address the Commission
regarding the request, Chairman Emison closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
The City Attorney advised the Commission on the legal test for a conditional use.
After discussion, Commissioner Moore made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use
request to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen, based on the findings of fact of the staff report dated
September 8, 2011, and the following conditions as proposed by Planning staff:
1. The footprint of the existing structure shall not be increased in size.
2. All signage shall conform to the City’s signage ordinances. Permits shall be obtained from the City’s
Building Department prior to the placement of any signage on the site.
3. A new conditional use application shall be required if there is a change in ownership of the property
which requires a conditional use, or if the use ceases for more than six months.
4. All of the above conditions shall be fully and faithfully executed or the conditional use shall become null
and void.
Commissioner Herring seconded the motion and a lengthy discussion ensued regarding the required distance
separation for an establishment which serves alcohol from a church. The pros and cons included positive reuse of a currently vacant building, removal of the property from the tax rolls, stable land uses in depressed or
blighted areas, and negative impacts on future potential businesses regarding the alcohol distance separation.
After further discussion, the Commission voted 4—1 (Murdock) in favor of recommending approval of the
conditional use request to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
Page 4 of 5
PLANNER’S REPORT
City Planner Ben Griffith stated that there would be a public hearing at the October 11th meeting and
possibly a plat or two for review. He stated that he would like to have the Commissioners review a draft of a
proposed permitted and conditional land use chart in a work session setting, from which the draft Form
Based Code would draw its land use categories. He also asked if the Commissioners would be opposed to
holding a special call meeting towards the end of October to review the Form Based Code draft in a work
session setting prior to the scheduling of public hearings, in order to focus their attention on the draft
without any other items of business to consider. Mr. Griffith concluded by reminding the Commissioners to
be mindful of all ex parte communications and to contact the Planning Office with any questions regarding
any items on upcoming agendas.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Murdock made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Walker, to adjourn the
meeting at approximately 7:40 PM. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning & Zoning
Commission will be Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Courtroom.
________________________________
Jerry Emison, Chairman
________________________________
Page 5 of 5
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2011
The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Starkville, Mississippi held its regularly
scheduled meeting at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Courtroom at 101 E. Lampkin Street, Starkville,
Mississippi. Present were Commissioners Dora Herring, James Hicks, Jerry Emison, Jason Walker,
Ira Loveless and John Moore.
Commissioner Murdock was absent due to the birth of his first child and requested, via an e-mail to
the Planning Office, to be excused. After discussion, and upon the motion of Commissioner
Herring, seconded by Commissioner Moore, the Commission voted unanimously to excuse
Commissioner Murdock’s absence.
Attending the Commissioners were City Planner Ben Griffith and Recording Secretary Bill Green.
Assistant City Planner Pamela Daniel also attended the meeting. City Attorney Chris Latimer
arrived a few minutes late, due to his attendance at a Special Call Meeting of the Mayor and Board of
Aldermen.
AN ORDER APPROVING THE WRITTEN AGENDA
The Commission considered the matter of approval of the written agenda dated August 9, 2011.
Commissioner Hicks made a motion to move the public hearing for the PUD request to the end of
the agenda, which died for lack of a second. After discussion, and upon the motion of
Commissioner Hicks, seconded by Commissioner Loveless, the Commission voted unanimously to
approve the agenda as presented.
AN ORDER APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 2011 MEETING
The Commission considered the matter of approval of the minutes of the July 12, 2011 meeting.
After discussion and upon the motion of Commissioner Hicks, seconded by Commissioner Herring,
the Commission voted unanimously to approve said minutes as presented.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Emison asked if any member of the public cared to address the Commission, stating that
there was a public hearing on the agenda and comments regarding that item would be called for at
the appropriate time. No comments were received.
A PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED BY MR. MICHAEL KRAKER FOR APPROVAL
OF A PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF EAST GARRARD ROAD IN WARD 5
Page 1 of 7
There came before the Commission item #PD 11-02: a request by Mr. Michael Kraker for approval
of a zoning change from R-1 (Single Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for
approximately 5.01 acres of land, located in the southwest corner of the former “Pilkington Trailer
Park” on the north side of East Garrard Road, west of Old West Point Road, in Ward 5.
The City Planner read a brief introduction of the item, asking if any of the Commissioners had been
contacted by anyone regarding the request. Commissioner Ira Loveless stated that he owned
property within 160 feet of the subject property and recused himself from the Courtroom.
Mr. Michael Kraker, Ms. Gayle Kraker and Mr. Neil Couvillion presented the request, providing a
poster-sized display board with a conceptual layout of the project and sample photographs of singlefamily residences.
Mr. Kraker stated that he is proposing a cluster-type development which is in line with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, with a density which is only slightly higher than what is allowed for R-1 zoned
properties. He stated that the project would be built in two phases and would hopefully begin in
2012, adding that it would be a positive development for the area.
Commissioner Herring stated that the project looked congested, and the width of the right-of-way
did not meet the City’s requirements.
Mr. Couvillion answered that the roadway design was more compact and that the Fire Marshall had
reviewed the roadway layout during the Development Review Committee meeting, stating that the
42-foot right-of-way width would accommodate the City’s fire trucks.
Commissioner Herring asked questions regarding acreage, lot sizes, square footages of proposed
homes, ingress and egress of internal streets, covenants, and overflow parking for guests. The
applicants responded to her questions and other members of the Commission joined in on the
discussion.
Chairman Emison then opened the floor for public comments.
Dr. Greg Ibendahl of Pressly Place Subdivision spoke against the request, stating that it would have
a negative impact on him, adding that he was aware that a road may someday be built but never
anticipated any other development.
Ms. Jane Loveless of Trotter Lane echoed what Dr. Ibendahl said, suggesting to wait until the road
opens and see what happens, adding that it was zoned R-1 when she moved into her home and that
it should remain R-1 and that anything else would negatively affect her property values.
Ms. Kraker addressed the public comments, stating that the proposed uses were residential, as
shown on the conceptual plan, adding that the density was only slightly higher than that allowed for
R-1 zoning. She stated that the pocket neighborhood concept allowed for smaller homes on smaller
lots, but also called for greater aesthetic value, more open space, common areas and other outdoor
amenities, which were not required on regularly-zoned properties.
A discussion ensued regarding density, lot sizes and open space requirements for Planned Unit
Developments. At that point, the Chairman closed the public hearing and asked the City Planner to
Page 2 of 7
explain density and how it was calculated. Mr. Griffith explained the differences between gross and
net densities and also that a PUD did not mandate a minimum lot size since it also required
minimum open space.
Commissioner Walker stated that he appreciated the fact that the applicant was proposing to
incorporate the creek as an amenity and not putting it in a pipe, adding that he was concerned about
the distance from some of the proposed homes to the creek.
Commissioner Moore asked if a change in the neighborhood was required for the rezoning request
from R-1 to PUD.
The City Attorney advised the Commission on the legal test for a rezoning.
A lengthy discussion ensued among the Commissioners about public need and change in the area
and whether or not the impending opening of East Garrard Road constituted a change in the area.
Ms. Kraker stated that the opening of East Garrard Road was a change, but the character of the area
had already changed with the opening of the Bypass to Highway 12, which increased traffic to MSU
from Old West Point Road and North Montgomery Street.
Mr. Kraker stated that when the Highway 12 Bypass was opened, several properties had been
rezoned to Commercial.
Another lengthy discussion ensued about whether the impending opening of East Garrard Road was
sufficient enough to consider a change, since it had not actually occurred and the City Attorney
stated that any change in the area must have already occurred in order to be considered by the
Commissioners.
Another lengthy discussion ensued regarding the request and whether or not it would be appropriate
to deny it or allow the applicant to withdraw it and re-apply when East Garrard Road opened. At
the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Kraker announced that he would like to formally withdraw the
PUD request.
Commissioner Loveless then returned to the Courtroom.
A REQUEST BY D.G. BELLEVUE, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF THE “EXCEL WEST”
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT LOCATED IN A C-2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) ZONING
DISTRICT AT 902½ MS HIGHWAY 12 WEST IN WARD 1
There came before the Commission item #FP 11-09: A request by D.G. Bellevue, LLC for
approval of the “Excel West” final subdivision plat, located in a C-2 (General Business) zoning
district at 902½ MS Highway 12 East, immediately to the east of the “Sweet Peppers” restaurant, in
Ward 1. The City Planner then read a brief introduction of the item.
Mr. Mike Rozier presented the request, stating that this plat was revised from the original one from
2007 where he has added property to provide direct access from Highway 12. He stated that he
Page 3 of 7
intends to build a stand-alone retail store next to Peppers and that while he has not finalized plans
for the rest of the property, he will maintain ownership and be a partner with future developments.
Commissioner Loveless asked about access from the Peppers driveway and Mr. Rozier answered
that he had an easement from the property owner.
After further discussion, Commissioner Walker made a motion to recommend approval of the final
plat to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen based on the findings of fact and conclusions of the staff
report dated August 4, 2011, and the following conditions as proposed by Planning staff:
1. The final plat shall meet the minimum standards for the State of Mississippi, as required by §171-23 and §17-1-25 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended.
2. The final plat shall meet the minimum requirements for C-2 zoning dimensions.
3. All public utilities are currently in place.
4. Erosion control vegetation shall be established on all disturbed areas.
5. Sidewalk construction shall conform to the City’s Sidewalk Ordinance and ADA standards.
6. The applicant shall provide adequate and satisfactory test reports for roadways, curbs and all
drainage structures and facilities.
7. The applicant shall provide two paper copies of the recorded plat to the City, along with a digital
copy in “AutoCAD” format in standard state plane coordinates.
8. The applicant shall provide “as-built” drawings of all infrastructure improvements (water, sewer,
storm drainage, roadways, sidewalks, etc.) in “AutoCAD” format as well as a paper copy that is
signed and sealed by a licensed design professional, guaranteeing accuracy.
9. The final plat shall be recorded at the Office of the Oktibbeha County Chancery Clerk within
thirty (30) days of the approval by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
Commissioner Hicks seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously in favor of
recommending approval of the final plat to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
A REQUEST BY MR. GARRY HUGHES FOR APPROVAL OF THE “REED PLACE
SUBDIVISION” REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED IN AN R-2 (SINGLE
FAMILY/DUPLEX) ZONING DISTRICT AT 800 REED ROAD IN WARD 6
There came before the Commission item #PP 10-06: a request by Mr. Garry Hughes for approval
of the “Reed Place Subdivision” a revised preliminary plat located in an R-2 (Single Family/Duplex)
zoning district at 800 Reed Road, southwest of the intersection of Reed and Garrard Roads in Ward
6. The City Planner then read a brief introduction of the item.
Mr. Ed Springer presented the request, stating that when they received approval in December, they
began their site investigation which revealed tombstones of World War II veterans, Indian artifacts,
and wetlands, all of which required substantial revisions be made to the original preliminary plat.
Page 4 of 7
Commissioner Herring asked where the artifacts were found and Mr. Springer answered that they
were primarily found along a ridge next to the old dairy barn.
Commissioner Loveless asked about parcels labeled “not part of development” and Mr. Springer
answered that the project was dependent upon tax credits which was determined by a fixed number
of residential lots, adding that they would probably be developed in the future as a second phase of
development.
After further discussion, Commissioner Hicks made a motion to recommend approval of the revised
preliminary plat to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen based on the findings of fact and conclusions
of the staff report dated August 4, 2011, and the following conditions as proposed by Planning staff:
1. The preliminary plat meets the minimum standards for the State of Mississippi, as required by
§17-1-23 and §17-1-25 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (1972), as amended.
2. The preliminary plat shall meet the minimum requirements for R-2 zoning dimensions.
3. Approval of the preliminary plat shall be tentative, pending the submission of the final plat, as
specified in Appendix B, Article IV, Section 3 of the City of Starkville’s Code of Ordinances.
4. The applicant shall prepare and submit infrastructure plans in accordance with Appendix B,
Article III, Sections 3 & 4 of the City of Starkville’s Code of Ordinances.
5. When infrastructure plans have been approved for construction, a pre-construction conference
shall be held with appropriate city staff prior to the commencement of any construction
activities at the site.
6. When a final plat is submitted for review by the City’s Development Review Committee, all
required improvements must be complete and the applicant shall provide “as-built” drawings of
all infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, storm drainage, roadways, sidewalks, etc.) in
“AutoCAD” format as well as a paper copy that is signed and sealed by a licensed professional
engineer, indicating that the improvements were installed under his/her responsible direction
and that the improvements conform to the approved construction plans, specifications and the
City’s ordinances.
7. All public utilities shall be in place and any non-conforming conditions noted during final
inspection and shall be corrected prior to placement onto the Planning & Zoning Commission
agenda.
8. Approval of the preliminary plat shall be valid for one year, per Appendix B, Article III, Section
2(6)(b) of the City of Starkville’s Code or Ordinances.
9. A final plat review and approval shall be required prior to the recording of the plat at the Office
of the Oktibbeha County Chancery Clerk.
Commissioner Herring seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously in favor of
Page 5 of 7
A REQUEST BY BREWER CONSTRUCTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE “BENT
BROOK RIDGE SUBDIVISION” PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED IN AN R-1
(SINGLE FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF YELLOW
JACKET DRIVE IN WARD 3
There came before the Commission item #PP 11-01: a request by Brewer Construction for
approval of the “Bent Brook Ridge Subdivision” preliminary plat located in an R-1 (Single Family)
zoning district on the south side of Yellow Jacket Drive between Starkville High School and the
Pleasant Acres subdivision, in Ward 3. The City Planner then read a brief introduction of the item.
Mr. Ed Springer presented the request, stating that the platted area included approximately five acres
adjacent to the football field, behind Dr. Josey’s house. He stated that the owner sold a portion of
the property to an adjacent property owner in the Pleasant Acres subdivision and referred to the
project as a “fish hook subdivision” due to its configuration.
Commissioner Herring asked if Lots 1, 2 and 3 would be accessed from the cul-de-sac, and Mr.
Springer answered that they would and the homes would not be facing the football field.
After further discussion, Commissioner Hicks made a motion to recommend approval of the
preliminary plat to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen based on the findings of fact and conclusions
of the staff report dated August 4, 2011, and the following conditions as proposed by Planning staff:
1. The preliminary plat meets the minimum standards for the State of Mississippi, as required by
§17-1-23 and §17-1-25 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (1972), as amended.
2. The preliminary plat shall meet the minimum requirements for R-2 zoning dimensions.
3. Approval of the preliminary plat shall be tentative, pending the submission of the final plat, as
specified in Appendix B, Article IV, Section 3 of the City of Starkville’s Code of Ordinances.
4. The applicant shall prepare and submit infrastructure plans in accordance with Appendix B,
Article III, Sections 3 & 4 of the City of Starkville’s Code of Ordinances.
5. When infrastructure plans have been approved for construction, a pre-construction conference
shall be held with appropriate city staff prior to the commencement of any construction
activities at the site.
6. When a final plat is submitted for review by the City’s Development Review Committee, all
required improvements must be complete and the applicant shall provide “as-built” drawings of
all infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, storm drainage, roadways, sidewalks, etc.) in
“AutoCAD” format as well as a paper copy that is signed and sealed by a licensed professional
engineer, indicating that the improvements were installed under his/her responsible direction
and that the improvements conform to the approved construction plans, specifications and the
City’s ordinances.
7. All public utilities shall be in place and any non-conforming conditions noted during final
inspection and shall be corrected prior to placement onto the Planning & Zoning Commission
agenda.
8. Approval of the preliminary plat shall be valid for one year, per Appendix B, Article III, Section
2(6)(b) of the City of Starkville’s Code or Ordinances.
Page 6 of 7
9. A final plat review and approval shall be required prior to the recording of the plat at the Office
of the Oktibbeha County Chancery Clerk.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously in favor of
PLANNER’S REPORT
City Planner Ben Griffith introduced Ms. Pamela Daniel, the new Assistant City Planner. He also
stated that there would be at least one public hearing at the September 13th meeting and possibly a
plat or two for review. He concluded by reminding the Commissioners to be mindful of all ex parte
communications and to contact the Planning Office with any questions regarding any items on
upcoming agendas.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hicks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 PM. The next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission will be September 13, 2011 at 5:30 PM in
the City Hall Courtroom.
________________________________
Jerry Emison, Chairman
________________________________
Page 7 of 7

OFFIICAL AGENDA - City of Starkville

Transcription

Similar documents

MLK - Landcroc

What does “Commercial/Industrial Mean to NAHBA Today?

PLAN COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT

DISCIPLESHIP TRAINING SCHOOL (DTS)

Regular Meeting - City of Dripping Springs

Application Form for Degree in Absentia

Berewick

college official`s report curry college

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONDUCT A ZONING ADMINISTOR

Nursing Education Initiative Application Checklist PLEASE