Blacksburg planning commission backs rezoning, alley vacation and CUP for 801 North Main student-oriented development

The Blacksburg Planning Commission voted Jan. 7 to recommend approval of three companion applications for a proposed development at 801 North Main Street: a town‑owned alley vacation (ROW 242), a rezoning from General Commercial and R‑5 Transitional Residential to Planned Residential (Rezoning 242), and a conditional use permit to permit alley access to non‑single‑family units (CUP 243). The actions were taken at the Roger E. Hedgepath Chambers during the commission’s regular meeting.

The applications cover roughly 2.8 acres and would allow construction of an eight‑story mixed‑use building with ground‑floor commercial space, several three‑story townhome‑style multifamily buildings, structured parking and associated site work. The applicant, LV Collective, is the contract purchaser of the properties; project drawings and the staff report show a proposed improvement that includes a landscaping strip, wider sidewalks on Main Street, and proffers for energy performance and an affordable housing contribution of $1,130,000 to the town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Staff presentation and legal context

Kenzie O'Shea, planning staff, told the commission the submissions were three separate actions that would be considered in sequence. O'Shea said the alley to be vacated is approximately 2,000 square feet and currently provides rear access to commercial properties; staff noted there are no residences with alley access. O'Shea cited zoning ordinance section 5719A to explain that alleys are limited to single‑unit residential unless a conditional use permit is granted.

O'Shea also summarized zoning and design standards: the proposed multifamily building would range about 82–94 feet tall, the townhome‑style buildings about 35 feet; the planned residential district requires a minimum of 20 percent open space (the applicant proposes a mix of terraces and indoor resident amenity space to meet that requirement); and two modifications are requested — allowing more than one townhome yard to be improved with parking and permitting sidewalks without the standard 4‑foot vegetative strip on certain frontages.

Applicant case and infrastructure commitments

John Veil of Foresight Design Services, presenting for the applicant, described the project as delivering development on a site he said is largely vacant or in disrepair and constrained by floodplain and undersized storm infrastructure. Veil reviewed stormwater design revisions and said the project team and town staff have designed a system that, as presented, would require roughly a $3,000,000 investment in public storm infrastructure, including replacement or upsizing of about 400 linear feet of existing pipe, increased conveyance capacity and daylighting of roughly half of the new system elements to reduce 10‑ and 100‑year storm impacts downstream.

Veil also detailed the project’s parking and multimodal strategy. The applicant is proposing a reduced vehicle parking ratio (the presentation referenced a proposed 0.5 spaces per unit/bedroom metric and described management measures and incentives such as complimentary transit passes, car‑share options, semester shuttles and lease language to discourage bringing cars). The proposal includes an on‑site bicycle room the applicant said would hold at least 358 bikes and additional outdoor bike parking.

Public concerns and commissioner discussion

Six members of the public addressed the commission. Keith Macedo, a downtown business owner at 871 Cambridge Street, said renderings focused on Main Street but did not show how the proposed massing would relate to the adjacent neighborhood and warned the project would eliminate nine commercial storefronts on Cambridge Street and could prompt property owners to sell. Brian Wheeler, a resident of 509 Stonegate Drive, said the development (which several speakers referenced as roughly 759 beds) was too dense for the area, expressed skepticism about a 0.5 parking ratio and predicted spillover parking and neighborhood congestion. Renee Coleman, at 500 Stonegate Drive, said she supported infrastructure improvements but questioned whether the $1,130,000 affordable‑housing proffer represented an adequate community benefit. Eric Olsen (1002 Cambridge) said neighborhood safety and vehicle speeds were concerns; Shannon Blesser said the proposed eight‑story scale would change the town’s character.

Commissioners debated density, parking and community benefit. Several commissioners emphasized the regional housing shortage and the long‑range planning objective of concentrating growth near campus and transit to limit sprawl; others said the project had too much height and density or that the affordable housing contribution was low. Multiple commissioners praised the applicant for extensive stormwater engineering and for responsiveness during the work‑session process. One commissioner noted the commission could support the right‑of‑way vacation or the CUP while withholding support for rezoning — the three items were handled as separate votes.

Votes at a glance (Planning Commission recommendation)

- Right‑of‑way vacation (ROW 242): recommendation to approve the request to vacate approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of town‑owned alley; outcome: recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.

- Conditional use permit (CUP 243): recommendation to approve use of the alley for access to non‑single‑family residential units (22 townhome‑style units); outcome: recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.

- Rezoning (Rezoning 242): recommendation to rezone the combined parcels (about 2.8 acres, including the alley area) from General Commercial and R‑5 Transitional Residential to Planned Residential (PR) to permit the proposed mixed‑use and townhome‑style multifamily development; outcome: recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.

What the project would require and next steps

If the Town Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the approvals would allow the developer to proceed to detailed site design and permitting. The proposal includes several binding proffers in the PRD application — maximum building height, occupancy/parking policies, signage, a sustainability energy‑use proffer (applicant cited an Energy Use Intensity target of about 32 in the presentation) and the $1,130,000 cash contribution to the town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (council previously seeded that fund with about $4,000,000 in ARPA funds, according to staff remarks). Planning staff told the commission stormwater and utilities serving the site are adequate with the proposed improvements and that any substantive changes to the PRD would require returning to the public hearing process.

Commissioners and public speakers said concerns about neighborhood parking, pedestrian connections and the Cambridge Street frontage should be revisited before Town Council consideration. The Planning Commission’s recommendation and its staff report will be transmitted to Town Council for their decision on the rezoning, ROW vacation and CUP.