We Are Improving!

We hope that you'll find our new look appealing and the site easier to navigate than before. Please pardon any 404's that you may see, we're trying to tidy those up!  Should you find yourself on a 404 page please use the search feature in the navigation bar.  

Monday, 15 December 2014 16:07

Cross Creek proposal back on planning agenda

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

The Roanoke Rapids Planning Board Thursday will again look at a conditional use permit for Villages at Cross Creek to consider whether passing on to city council a recommendation on a multi-family apartment development on 20 acres of land.

The matter was pulled from city council's agenda in April after initial approval by the planning board in March.

The proposal on the table for the planning board is a conditional use permit application for an amendment to the planned unit development map, according to the agenda for the 5:30 p.m. meeting that will be held at the Lloyd Andrews City Meeting Hall on Jackson Street.

According to a December 9 memo from Planning and Development Director Kelly Lasky to members of the planning board, an application for a conditional use permit was submitted by MaSuki Incorporated, which is the applicant and owner of the property.

The amendment requests the conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Unit R-3 residential zoning to accommodate the construction of eight buildings containing a total of 192 residential units.

According to the memo, the company proposes two- and three-bedroom options with amenities to include a 3,200 square-foot clubhouse; swimming pool; picnic area; playground; dog park; sidewalks and private storage garage. It would have direct access to Highway 125.

The development requires an overall concept plan for the development of the tract prior to rezoning or establishing the zoning district.

In the memo, Lasky provides a background of the project that includes its permitting history as well as approvals.

The Villages at Cross Creek was initially approved in 2005 as one planned unit development project that comprehensively addressed traffic, density, utilities and infrastructure.

City council approved a conditional use permit authorizing the project as a planned unit development district with various zoning districts that allowed multi-family, single-family and commercially zoned areas fronting Highway 125.

At the time of the development approval, the site consisted of a single parcel of land that was nearly 195 acres and was approved to be comprised of eight designated individual development areas.

Initial plans were approved for 32 town home buildings with a total of 102 units and one club house, swimming pool and tennis court.

“The project was intended to be developed in two phases,” according the memo, however,. “After a few years of sales and development, the original developer suffered with the down economy and lost ownership of the property to the bank. Today, the project is less than half-built.”

Late last year, MaSuKi purchased a 104-acre tract of the property from Benchmark Community Bank and subsequently applied to rezone approximately 25 acres of the 104 acre tract from R-12 to R-3 zoning, which permits multi-family development.

Initially, the request was processed as a standard or conventional rezoning. “Staff determined that if the zoning districts of the Villages at Cross Creek had been approved as standard zoning districts, then the legislative rezoning process would have been appropriate. However, the standard rezoning process did not apply to the property given the approved conditional use permit for the Villages at Cross Creek planned unit development zoning map.”

 

Such a district, Lasky said in the memo, requires an overall concept plan for the development of the tract prior to rezoning or establishing the new zoning district. ”An authorized conditional use permit is perpetually binding upon the property unless subsequently changed by city council.The city council may amend or change any CUP, after a public hearing upon recommendation by the planning board and subject to the same consideration for the original issuance of the permit.”

Read 4046 times