Council approves rezoning, alley vacation and CUP for North Main mixed‑use project after lengthy public comment

Blacksburg Town Council approved three linked land‑use items March 11 that will allow a developer to build an eight‑story mixed‑use building and several townhome‑style multifamily buildings on about 2.8 acres along North Main Street.

The actions — Ordinance 20‑62 to rezone roughly 2.8 acres to the Planned Residential (PR) district, Ordinance 20‑63 to vacate about 2,000 square feet of town‑owned alley, and Resolution 3E‑25 granting a conditional use permit (CUP) to use that alley for non‑single‑unit residential access — were presented together by planning staff and the applicant and were voted on separately.

The applications were filed by LV Collective (contract purchaser) and presented by project representative Chris Johnson. Planning staff described the site as a mix of commercial and warehouse buildings, much of it in a floodplain; the proposed redevelopment would include an eight‑story mixed‑use building with structured parking, several three‑story townhome‑style multifamily buildings and a contribution to the town’s affordable housing fund.

Staff told council the site totals about 2.8 acres after proposed floodplain mitigation, and said the redevelopment would increase the amount of developable land on the parcels by about 2.25 acres by addressing drainage and undersized storm infrastructure. The staff presentation cited zoning code provisions, the town comprehensive plan and the North Main Street study as guidance for evaluating the rezone and PR district standards.

In public comment, more than a dozen residents and neighborhood representatives urged denial or delay. Common objections included the building’s height and scale, potential spillover parking into nearby single‑family neighborhoods, traffic and pedestrian safety at the nearby roundabout and intersections, loss of commercially designated land, and whether the town should be approving additional student‑oriented housing. Resident Karen Everhart said, “It actually makes me feel more anxious about this development,” and raised concerns about reduced parking and where residents would shop and drive. Rebecca Halsey told council the proposal “is geared towards students” and said the developer had not been responsive enough to neighborhood concerns.

The applicant and its team responded that the site is highly walkable to campus and downtown, that the project includes stormwater improvements that address chronic flooding (staff stated that the initial stormwater investment estimate was about $3,000,000), that the PRD proffers include building sustainability targets (applicant cited an energy‑use intensity target of 32 EUI or less) and a monetary contribution to the town’s affordable housing fund (applicant stated $1,138,000). The applicant said the development would include a bike room able to hold at least 358 bikes and proposed wider sidewalks, additional plantings adjacent to single‑family neighbors, and signage and occupancy proffers. On parking, the applicant argued proximity to campus, transit and an on‑site strategy could justify a lower parking standard than the zoning ordinance’s typical 1.1 spaces per bedroom; the applicant said it would manage parking and offer strategies to reduce vehicle demand.

Council members acknowledged strong neighborhood opposition and repeated concerns about height, density and parking. Several members said they were sympathetic to affordability and stormwater improvements while remaining uneasy about the building massing and shadowing. During deliberation, members referred to the town’s 2019 student housing guidance and the 2021 comprehensive plan update directing mixed‑use and student‑oriented housing in parts of North Main.

The staff report and applicant materials noted required modifications and proffers: modifications to allow driveways/parking for townhome yards, a requested sidewalk configuration without the typical 4‑foot vegetative strip, proffers covering conformance, maximum building height limits in the proffer, a residential parking policy, occupancy restrictions, sign package proffers, energy performance commitments, stormwater/floodplain compliance documentation, and dedicated maintenance access and easements. Planning Commission had recommended approval of all three items at its Jan. 8 public hearing.

Votes at the council meeting were taken separately for the rezone (Ordinance 20‑62), the alley vacation (Ordinance 20‑63) and the alley CUP (Resolution 3E‑25). The record shows council roll‑call entries for the rezone with the following recorded votes in the transcript: Leslie Hager Smith (Aye); Mattingly (Aye); Gutman (Aye); Dotson (Aye); Anderson (Nay); Oliver (Nay). The transcript records the roll calls for the related alley vacation and CUP later in the evening and indicates those items were acted upon in sequence; the alley vacation and CUP roll calls appear separately in the official minutes.

What happens next: the PRD approvals and proffers are binding on the applicant; any substantive change to the approved plan would require an amendment through the public hearing process. The applicant said stormwater work and construction scheduling would follow the approvals and estimated that stormwater and site work would be significant elements of early project costs.

Council members and residents noted continued interest in monitoring on‑street parking, transit ridership at the site’s bus stops, and post‑approval pedestrian and traffic safety measures. Several council members said they expected residents and neighborhoods to pursue permit‑parking or other mitigations if spillover parking appears.

—ENDING: The council hearing brought extensive public comment on the balance between additional housing supply and neighborhood impacts. The staff packet and applicant proffers will be part of the formal record; any future amendments to the PRD must return to public hearing.