Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Christiansburg planning commission delays decision on 28‑unit Christman/West Main proposal after neighbors raise safety, traffic concerns
Summary
Neighbors told the planning commission the 28‑unit proposal would overload narrow neighborhood streets, reduce green space and pose stormwater and child‑safety risks; the applicant said peak‑hour trips would be about 10–11 and agreed to staff conditions. Commissioners requested more data and a site visit and will revisit the item Dec. 15.
The Christiansburg Planning Commission heard more than an hour of public comment and technical discussion on Dec. 1 over a conditional use permit request from Clayco LLC to build a planned housing development of 28 multifamily units on about 2.031 acres northwest of the Christman Street SW and 1st Street SW intersection.
Town staff told commissioners the proposal seeks two deviations from the R‑3 district standards: 14 units per building where the district standard is 12, and a requested maximum building height of 43 feet instead of the 35‑foot limit. Staff recommended three conditions for approval: conformity with the submitted master plan dated 09/22/2025, limiting the approval to the residential use described in the application, and maintaining a row of at least five evergreen screening trees along an adjacent parcel.
Steve Simenas of Balzer and Associates, representing the applicant, said the project would be primarily one‑ and two‑bedroom market‑rate rental units and that the additional units were needed to make the development financially feasible. Simenas acknowledged a typo in the application’s rear‑setback figure and said the applicant could adjust the setback to address the increased height. “During those peak hours…we're estimating only a total of 10 trips during that peak hour in the morning and 11 trips during that peak hour in the afternoon,” Simenas said, summarizing the trip‑generation analysis submitted with the application.
Several nearby residents urged denial or further scrutiny. Rami Steinrick read a letter from his neighbor Kaye Carter Cooper that argued the development would “increase the density of the neighborhood by 50%,” contend it would fail to provide the cited 400 square feet of green space per dwelling, and warned of a “hazardous 30 foot drop” at the proposed stormwater retention area. Kyle Brooks, who lives on Longview Drive, told the commission the parcel’s only access via Angle Drive and 1st Street—both narrow local roads—would add “anywhere from 15 to 56 extra vehicles per day” to those streets and could push parking into adjacent blocks.
Other neighbors raised child‑safety and pedestrian concerns because many homes lack sidewalks. “There are lots and lots of people who walk around that neighborhood at all hours of the day,” Olivia Brooks said, asking that pedestrian safety be considered in any decision. Diane Gabriel described the neighborhood’s history and said increased traffic would put children and seniors at risk.
Commissioners questioned whether alternative access from Christman (frontage street) was feasible. The applicant said grading prevented a safe connection there and that stormwater constraints made other access points difficult. Staff and the applicant said some sidewalk would be installed adjacent to the parcel where frontage exists, but the project does not provide continuous sidewalks along the narrow neighborhood roads.
One commissioner disclosed a potential business interest on the record pursuant to Virginia Code sections cited at the meeting and said they could still participate in discussion and voting. Staff clarified the zoning process: the site could be developed by‑right for 20 units under R‑3, the applicant requests 28 units via the planned housing development conditional use permit, and a full PHD could allow up to ~40 units on the two acres.
The commission did not vote on the CUP. Commissioners asked staff and engineering to provide additional information on road widths, emergency vehicle access, sidewalk placement and the feasibility and safety implications of restricting or reconfiguring neighborhood access (for example, removable bollards or partial closures). The commission asked members to visit the site and will discuss the matter again at its Dec. 15 meeting; town council is scheduled to hold a separate public hearing on the matter Jan. 13.
What happens next: planning commissioners will request engineering data and perform site visits before the Dec. 15 meeting, after which the commission will forward a recommendation to town council, which then holds its own public hearing prior to a council decision.
