Opposition forms to Blacksburg housing proposal
Nearly 200 people have signed a petition designed to block an off-campus student housing project in northwest Blacksburg proposed by Georgia-based Landmark Properties Inc.
Some nearby residents say that the company’s concept to build 192 student homes is too dense for the 48-acre site north of Glade Road. The vacant land is earmarked in town planning documents for about 48 single family homes and that would be a much better use of it, opponent say.
The proposed student housing project, which Landmark calls The Retreat, is the latest in a series of collegiate communities built by the company in seven states. So far on the Blacksburg project, Landmark has contracted to buy the land, which they say is the only suitable lot in the town for a student housing complex.
Adjacent landowners have formed an opposition group called Tom’s Creek Responsible Development, have a website and Facebook page, and are circulating an online petition that had 197 signatures as of late last week. They are raising several concerns about not just density but also environmental and traffic issues.
Town Manager Marc Verniel confirmed that Landmark’s vision for The Retreat would not comply with land-use directives found in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Landmark has not yet filed any proposal with the town.
The next turn of events will be the town’s evaluation of a request filed May 4 by the landowner, Glade Heights LLC, to change the comprehensive plan to allow the level of development that Landmark Properties envisions. That process could take several months. Glade Heights has a contract to sell the land to Landmark or its affiliate.
In spite of the resident opposition, which was voiced to Landmark officials at a meeting last month, the company is still pushing forward.
Andrew Dolbin-MacNab is an eight-year resident of Village at Tom’s Creek, a neighborhood beside the site. He said he can’t see the site from his house but sees it on walks. Not only is the proposal too dense, Dolbin-MacNab said he questioned the company’s pitch to the community.
For instance, while Landmark states that campus is a half-mile walk from the site, that takes one only to the edge of the Inn at Virginia Tech property, Dolbin-MacNab said. The center of the drillfield is more than a mile away, which he said undercuts Landmark’s marketing message that students could easily bike or walk to campus.
Dolbin-MacNab, and other Village Tom’s Creek resident, also raise doubts about Landmark’s needs analysis.
On a website about The Retreat, Landmark projected forward enrollment growth at Virginia Tech for the past seven years as if it will continue for years to come. However, enrollment growth is slowing, according to Virginia Tech data. Landmark’s published estimate for the number of new students likely to attend Tech – 370 a year – is about three times what the university predicts.
In addition, Landmark Properties appears to have somewhat undercounted available housing. It based its assertion that more housing is needed in part on the supply of bedrooms in the eight large student housing complexes. There are at least 32 venues for student rental housing in Blacksburg, according to the New River Valley Apartment Council.
Also, while the occupancy rate for them is currently high, the demand for off-campus housing is weaker for fall 2012 because the university intends to open additional on-campus housing, said Stephanie Weeks, president of the apartment council.
University officials who oversee student housing “have not seen nor been aware of students experiencing problems finding off-campus housing,” VT spokesman Larry Hincker said.
Jason Doornbos, a vice president of development at Landmark, when asked about the challenge to the company’s analysis, said his company did not previously have the latest enrollment outlook by the university. He said Blacksburg needs the project even without the enrollment growth of 370 students a year that Landmark projected. That’s because housing purpose-built for students is virtually full and students are living in near-campus neighborhoods, where their presence and lifestyle creates tension for non-student residents and families, he said.
“It is our opinion, based on over a decade of developing student housing, that this market needs additional student housing, and specifically our ‘student cottage’ product,” Doornbos said.
Eric Sallee, managing member of Glade Heights, which owns the land, declined to comment on the student housing proposal. Sallee, who lives in the Village at Tom’s Creek, also declined to comment when asked his opinion as a resident.
The Roanoke Times | 381-1661
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
So the proposal goes against the comprehensive plan (developed with citizen input) and current zoning. Seems pretty straight forward, the answer is “NO”. Especially since it’s zoned for single family homes which still means homes, growth, tax revenue, etc.
One has to question the process of developing a comprehensive plan IF anytime someone with money and a desire to build something can buy their way into ignoring/modifying/changing a plan developed by all the citizens.
Comment by StanZ1987 — May 13, 2012 @ 8:50 am
So the HUNDREDS of homes that have already built in this area are ‘fine’…just as long as no one else gets to build…strange thinking…this town needs to see beyond the screamers and do whats best for jobs, revenue, housing and development while enforcing the existing codes with regard to design, open space and landscaping…as long as those are done properly every needs to zip it. Remember – our ‘local vocals’ destroyed First & Main before it was ever built…and look what they created…
Comment by fact checker — May 13, 2012 @ 9:40 am
Stick to the comprehensive plan! These “qualified” real estate investors purchased the land fully knowing what it was zoned for. Now that Glade Heights, LLC can’t afford to develop it according to the current zoning, they want to rewrite the rules. They made a poor investment and now they need to live by it. Develop the land based on the current zoning or sell it for what you can to someone who will. The comprehensive plan is there for many great reasons, one of which is to protect us from out of state companies who are out to make a quick buck with no concerns for the town or its residents.
Comment by ConcernedBlacksburgCitizen — May 14, 2012 @ 8:45 am
In their own words:
“Jason Doornbos, a vice president of development at Landmark, when asked … said … students are living in near-campus neighborhoods, where their presence and lifestyle creates tension for non-student residents and families, he said.”
Voila!
If students’ presence and lifestyle creates tension near neighbourhoods with non-students and families then the solution is simple: build elsewhere and not in between two residential neighbourhoods!
Comment by AdS — May 14, 2012 @ 9:25 am
Well put StanZ. The town has much more pressing needs for other types of housing (such as young professional housing), so it seems like IF zoning were to be altered it would be for a project that addresses a real need. Right now the ‘need’ for this project appears to be Landmark’s need to make money (which they could certainly pursue elsewhere on a properly zoned piece of land; of course, that would mean they would have to pay true market value rather than get it for a deal and then get the rules changed).
Comment by Kim — May 14, 2012 @ 12:46 pm
Stan, planning documents are plans, not laws. The special permitting and rezoning processes are used to make changes to the plans if the Council thinks it’s in the best interests of the town (or county, or city, as the case may be). That’s because things change, and you need a method to adjust the plans sometimes. If you check the VT strategic plan, you will find that growth in student population, especially in graduate students, is beyond the numbers cited here, Jeff’s research notwithstanding. That certainly doesn’t mean this proposed project is necessary. But not to fear – given Council’s recent tradition of bowing to the wishes of small, vocal groups, there is no way the project will be approved.
Comment by NRJMike — May 14, 2012 @ 1:11 pm
It is interesting that fact checker seems to think that all those opposed to this development are against all development. I believe that the consistent view–from what I’ve read–is that is should be developed in accordance with current zoning and the surrounding density. The fact is when you actually look at the surrounding densities, there are 2 dwelling units per acre in the Village at Tom’s Creek, ~1.6 DU/Acre to the west, and ~1.5 DU/Acre to the south. The current future land use density for the parcel is 1.5 DU/Acre. So now that everything has been developed around this parcel to a density of 2 DU/Acre–or less–why should the Town come in at the last minute and with the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle–in this area of the Town–RAM a density of 4 DU/Acre onto this site? Especially a development which, based on the quotes from VT, doesn’t seem like something that is really needed since there doesn’t appear to be a shortage of student housing.
Comment by fact checker checker — May 14, 2012 @ 1:35 pm
@fact checker: Yes, there are family homes surrounding this property. Nobody objects to building family homes on this site, that is what the land owners originally proposed, that is what the comp plan supports, that is what current zoning supports. A neighborhood of family homes would meet all requirements and satisfy the town’s housing needs and also produce economic benefits. 784 student rental bedrooms with 850 cars (on a slow day) do not constitue a family neighborhood and would be drastically different than what the town has planned for on the site. No need to get condescending just because people have valid concerns and arguments about this proposal.
Comment by Kim — May 14, 2012 @ 1:35 pm
Mr. fact checker, If you think this potential development is so great for the Town, why aren’t you willing to use your real name here? And please check your facts to explain how a student housing development that just moves an existing student population from one location to another will create more jobs and revenue. I agree fully that the existing codes for zoning and development design standards should be enforced, which means that we should not allow the subject property to be reclassified in the Comprehensive Plan and rezoned for a high-density student housing development that is completely inappropriate on this environmentally sensitive site in the middle of several single-family neighborhoods with much lower density. I would be happy to support a single-family development there that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. I would also be happy to support Landmark’s development on another site that is already appropriately zoned and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Why should the Town of Blacksburg even bother writing a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance if we’re going to ignore them just because some out-of-town developer starts throwing money around?
Comment by Mary Ann Bonadeo — May 14, 2012 @ 2:00 pm
The Comprehensive Plan was written to protect the town from excessive construction in this beautiful area. Glade Heights is a wonderful investment that needs a buyer with the vision and ability to build according to the original plan and current zoning.
Glade Heights, LLC should continue its search for such a buyer.
Comment by Arlene — May 14, 2012 @ 6:48 pm
to NRJMike: to follow up on your comment ‘If you check the VT strategic plan, you will find that growth in student population, especially in graduate students, is beyond the numbers cited here’. You are incorrect. I went to the Virginia Tech Office of Institutional Research (www.ir.vt.edu) to check the numbers myself. They have a report available on-line that they submit to the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia that reports the official projected growth, both undergrad and grad. The official projections for growth of all populations will not increase more than 700 students all the way through the year 2018, yet the developer wants you to believe that there will be an increase of 370 students per year. This number is not based on any facts. Granted, the charts can be difficult to interpret, so to be sure I was reading all the charts correctly I even met with the assistant provost, who was very available and helpful. Bottom line is, the developer did not do their homework. The IR webpage lists the links for past enrollment and projected enrollment together, however since the numbers did not support what the developer wanted, they either didn’t look or chose to ignore it. The numbers are out there and not hard to find. Instead, the developer used the historic surge in enrollment from April 16th to make up a projected number that did suit their needs. Just one small example of the way they do business.
Comment by Kacie Hodges — May 14, 2012 @ 7:53 pm
The 780-plus bedrooms Landmark proposes to build will bring severe traffic problems to Glade Road, a road already hazardous due to University City Mall, Kroger, the post office, and access to the 460 bypass nearby. In addition, the additional bathrooms will further tax the already stressed Toms Creek watershed. Finally, the plan proposed is in violation of Blacksburg’s perfectly reasonable and necessary Comprehensive Plan. Although I do not live near the proposed development, I do not want to see the character of that neighborhood further degraded.
Comment by Lisa Ress — May 14, 2012 @ 9:08 pm
Has anyone researched Landmark’s portfolio? Their sites are actually quite beautiful compared to the traditional three floor military bunkers that developer’s call “The Village” and “Terrace View.” If you haven’t, please check out http://www.landmarkathens.com/communities/the_retreat/photos.php
I would much rather have this development as student housing than another Collegiate Suites like structure… and from looking at it, seems to be very similar to Echol’s Village down Givens Lane in Blacksburg.
Comment by Local_Hokie — May 18, 2012 @ 2:47 am
@Local_Hokie– yes, their pictures make it look like a quaint little development, but that is misleading. Scroll down on their architecture elevations (http://www.landmark-properties.com/retreatblacksburgfacts/docs/LandmarkProperites_architecture_booklet_JD-4.pdf) and you’ll see that most of their units are actually large, 3-story structures with 20-24 bedrooms. For instance, they do things like put 2 5-bedroom units on the bottom floor and then stack 2 4-bedroom townhouses on top of them. So you end up with a pretty large building that I don’t think most people would ever dream of calling a ‘cottage’. Another thing to remember is that all 20 of the students renting bedrooms in each one of these buildings will be parking outside, so imagine a sea of cars (800 or more), and it doesn’t look so cute anymore. Unfortunately I don’t think the pictures they like to show are representative of what they actually plan to build. The site plan shows numerous large structures if you look closely, you can check it yourself.
Comment by Amy — May 18, 2012 @ 6:32 pm
Local_Hokie: Have you researched Landmark’s proposed site plan? Those cute little cottages shown in the photos are not the only thing they are planning on putting there. Does a 24 bedroom ‘cottage’ look any better than the traditional bunkers? Not much and they are proposing them on this site. Check out their site and look for the ‘Lumpkin’. Trust me, it looks as bad as it sounds. Also try the ‘Sycamore’, the ‘Cloverhurst’ and the ‘Boulevard’. These are not ‘cottages’ to any stretch of the imagination.
I’d much rather see the single family homes that the comp plan allows than any student housing at all. I will concede that when they do it right, they can have a nice looking product, but not 192 on this site, it is just not the place and what they market to hook you is not what you get. The old bait and switch. The site plan they are proposing will look nothing like Echol’s Village. They have developed sites with all cottages, but that is not what they are proposing here. Nice try, but take a second look at that site plan.
Comment by Hokies416 — May 18, 2012 @ 10:32 pm