Blacksburg Planning Commission Regular Meeting - October 5, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Blacksburg Planning Commission Regular Meeting - October 5, 2021
The Blacksburg Planning Commission held a regular meeting on October 5, 2021, at 6:30 pm in the Roger E. Hedgepeth Chambers of the Municipal Building. The meeting addressed four public hearings, including the continuation of the Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD), removal of land from the AFD for Northside Park, amendments to The Hub rezoning, and a rezoning amendment for the Midtown Development. The Commission voted 5-0 to approve the consent agenda, the AFD continuance, the Northside Park removal, and The Hub amendments. The Midtown Development amendment was denied 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of September 7, 2021, Planning Commission minutes: Motion passed 5-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were offered during any public hearing or the general citizen comment period.
Discussion Items
Agricultural and Forestal District Continuance (ORD 1974)
- Staff presented an ordinance to continue the AFD for an additional 10 years (until 2031) and to update parcel information. The ordinance serves to correct administrative errors and codify changes since the last continuance in 2009. The AFD Advisory Committee recommended approval (8-0). No public comment. Motion to approve passed 5-0.
Northside Park AFD Removal (AFD 21-0001/ORD 1973)
- Staff presented a request from Jeanne Stosser to remove 35.25 acres (subdivided into 56 lots) for the development of single-family homes (Northside Park Section 12, Phase 2). No applicant presentation or public comment. Motion to approve passed 5-0.
The Hub Rezoning Amendment (RZN 21-0004/ORD 1971)
- Staff and applicant (Steve Semones, Balzer and Associates) presented amendments to the previously approved Terrace View PRD (now The Hub): revised signage package, codification of an art sculpture in the roundabout, additional square footage for collaborative workspace, and codification of a setback modification. No changes to overall density or site layout. Discussion focused on the brightness of “faux neon” signage; applicant clarified it is a thin LED channel and brightness/color temperature can be adjusted. The applicant offered to provide a photo of an example sign. No public comment. Motion to approve passed 5-0.
Midtown Development Rezoning Amendment (RZN 21-0003/ORD 1968)
- This was the most contentious item. Staff (Anne McClung) outlined proposed changes: increase maximum bedrooms from 343 to 400 (a 16.6% increase), change density calculation to bedrooms only (removing “whichever is less” language), allow residential on lower floors on parcel DC2 (currently restricted to above the third floor), extend a building over a surface parking lot on DC4, reduce hotel parking ratio from 1.0 to 0.5 spaces per room, and tie the traffic signal installation at Main/Eheart to the 23rd Certificate of Occupancy rather than before any COs. The applicant withdrew requests to reduce the Clay Street trail and to allow non-hotel uses on DC6. New revision eliminated wording about a pool and clubhouse on PR parcels. The applicant (Steve Semones and Jim Cowan) argued that market demand for residential is strong while large office tenants are scarce; they emphasized flexibility and noted that a commitment to include office in at least one of the DC2/DC4 buildings was added. Discussion included concerns about departing from the original mixed-use vision, the risk of the site becoming entirely residential, lack of specific massing for DC2A and B, and the potential unenforceability of an income-verification restriction due to Virginia’s amended fair housing law (Virginia Code § 36-96.3). Planning Commissioners expressed that the amendment represented a significant shift without a clear vision, and that more tangible plans were needed before granting flexibility. Applicant rebutted that large office spaces are not currently viable and that residential is needed to “kick start” development. Motion to deny was made by Jack Davis, seconded by Susanna Rinehart, and passed 5-0.
Key Outcomes
- Consent agenda approved.
- ORD 1974 (AFD continuance) approved.
- ORD 1973 (Northside Park removal) approved.
- ORD 1971 (The Hub amendments) approved.
- ORD 1968 (Midtown Development amendments) denied.
- Slate of officers announced (Chair Andy Kassoff, Vice Chair Mel Jones, Secretary Tim Colley) for election at the November meeting.
- Historic or Design Review Board report: A roof replacement in the downtown residential area was approved.
- Montgomery County Planning Commission: No meeting held.
- Town Council report: Not given (no representative present).
- Meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Meeting Transcript
Welcome to the Tuesday, October 5th regular meeting of the Blacksburg Planning Commission. Regular meetings of the Blacksburg Planning Commission are held on the first Tuesdays of each month at 6 30 p.m. in the Roger Hedge Path Chambers of the Blacksburg Municipal Building, 300 South Main Street. Due to COVID 19 health concerns, seating in the council chambers is limited. Citizens are encouraged but not required to submit comments to the planning commission by email and view the hearings online or on local television, WTOP Channel 2. The meetings are also live streamed from WW.blacksburg.gov and recorded. Citizens may dress address the planning commission during specific times on the agenda and are requested to adhere to the following. Speak at the podium, state your name and address. Direct comments only to the commission. Please limit speaking time to a maximum of three minutes. And speak only once during a specific hearing or comment period. A wireless microphone is available to anyone requesting assistance. Please silence cell phones, show respect for all speakers, and allow all opinions to be expressed in a tolerant atmosphere. We'll start with a roll call. Mr. Davis. Present. Here, Ms. Jones. Here. Here. So we have a quorum. Hi. All right, so we'll start with the consent agenda, which is the approval of the planning commission minutes from September 7th of this year. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second. Okay, uh all in favor. Aye. Okay. Now we'll move to our public hearings. Our first hearing is ordinance 1974, an ordinance continuing the agricultural and forest district in the town of Blacksburg per sections 3300 and 3303 of the town code. We'll have a staff presentation to start. So the purpose of the AFD is to protect, conserve, and encourage the development and improvement of the town's agricultural and forestall lands, production of food and other products, and it also provides essential open space for wildlife habitat, clean water and airsheds, and protection of natural resources. The AFD Act is found in the state code and the language is mimicked in the town code. The AFD was created in 18 in 1982 by ordinance 514. Most recently, ordinance 1534 was adopted in 2009, which extended the district until June of 2019. This new ordinance will be retroactively written to cover the time since June of 2019, as well as to extend the district until June of 2031. And since 2009, there have been six requests for entry and exits to the district. According to state code, the review of the district should occur every four to ten years. This current review of the district will serve two purposes. The first is to continue the district for another 10 years, and the second is to update and correct all parcel information for parcels in the AFD. There are several tax implications of the district. Lands within the district are eligible for agricultural or forestal land use value assessment. That means that those lands that the that the property owner owns will be assessed at a lower rate than the residential rate of assessment. Participation in the town's AFD in combination with the county's land use assessment does provide a significant tax benefit for those property owners. The rollback tax is the sum of all the deferred taxes and interest for a period of five years preceding the change. Council also amended the ordinance in 2018 to make the land use assessment valuation benefits seamless between the county and the town. There is a cost to landowners in the district as there is a benefit. Upon withdrawal or termination of the district, the land is subject to rollback taxes.
openpublica.com