Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/1/2026 - Joint 1 MINUTES OF A JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN THE VINTON TOWN COUNCIL AND VINTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT 6:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2026, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE VINTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 311 SOUTH POLLARD STREET, VINTON, VIRGINIA MEMBERS PRESENT: Bradley E. Grose, Mayor Laurie J. Mullins, Vice Mayor Michael W. Stovall Keith N. Liles Sabrina M. McCarty PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jonathan P. McCoy, Chairman David R. Jones, Vice Chairman Robert W. Benninger Keith N. Liles Joshua Mullen STAFF PRESENT: Richard Peters, Town Manager Cody Sexton, Deputy Town Manager Megan Lawless, Town Clerk Anita McMillan, Director of Planning and Zoning Nathan McClung, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning Julie Tucei, Planning and Zoning Coordinator Jill Loope, Special Projects Assistant to the Town Manager Mayor Grose called the joint work session to order at 4:02 p.m. The Town Clerk called the roll with Council Member Liles, Council Member McCarty, Council Member Stovall, Vice Mayor Mullins, and Mayor Grose present. Mrs. Tucei then called the roll for the Planning Commission with Chairman McCoy, Vice Chairman Jones, Commissioner Benninger, Commissioner Liles, and Commissioner Mullen present. Mike Callahan with Line and Grade and Vlad Gavrilovic with New Paradigm provided a PowerPoint presentation on recommended zoning updates that align with the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the joint work session was to review the Vinton Zoning Code Updates to promote housing development. The project seeks to update the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and bring it into greater alignment with the housing and downtown vitality goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan goals were identified as relevant to the zoning code update with a high focus on the downtown area: 1. Increase the number of housing units within walking distance of downtown. 2. Increase the Town’s housing stock. 3. Increase the supply of starter homes and homes affordable to the Town’s workforce. 4. Encourage transformation of aging strip commercial development along major corridors into a more vibrant mix of uses, including housing. 5. Encourage adaptive reuse of older buildings. 2 The project goals presented included: 1. Establish better alignment between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Modernize zoning and development standards. 3. Seek and incorporate community input. 4. Provide greater flexibility in permitted housing types. 5. Facilitate a more active downtown through infill and mixed-use development. 6. Promote revitalization of commercial corridors. 7. Promote walkability. Initially, the project was expected to wrap up in October; however, Community Engagement was rescheduled for September to avoid the vacation season in July and August. The new timeline is by the end of the year. Mr. Callahan continued with the project analysis which found that the Town currently has a shortage of opportunities for missing middle housing. Missing middle housing generally includes housing types that fall between traditional single-family homes and larger multifamily developments. EXISTING ZONING STANDARDS A chart was provided within the presentation that provided dimensions, uses, parking, connectivity, and landscaping in the most popular districts in CB, GB, RB, R3, and R2. The existing zoning standards were reviewed across the Town’s residential, business, and mixed-use districts. The review considered minimum lot sizes and widths, building height, setbacks, lot coverage, density, permitted residential and mixed-use development, permitted housing types, parking requirements, shared and off-site parking, parking location, sidewalks, inter-parcel access, tree canopy, open space, and landscaping/buffering requirements. The review identified several standards that may limit the development of smaller-scale multifamily and middle housing types. GEOSPATIAL ZONING ANALYSIS A geospatial zoning analysis was conducted to determine where various housing types could potentially be constructed in Vinton under the existing zoning regulations. The analysis considered: • Existing zoning and development standards; • Parcel dimensions; • Vacant parcels; and • Town-owned parcels. The purpose of the analysis was to determine, under a best-case scenario, where various housing types could be developed under the Town’s current regulations. The analysis did not fully account for parcels that may be unbuildable due to physical or other site constraints. Single-family residential development is permitted by right on approximately 73% of the Town’s land area, representing approximately 1,477 acres. Of that area, approximately 182 acres, or 12.3%, are vacant. Townhomes are permitted by right on approximately 22% of the Town’s land area, representing approximately 449 acres. Approximately 59 acres, or 13.1%, are vacant. 3 Duplexes are permitted by right on approximately 31% of the Town’s land area, representing approximately 632 acres. Approximately 85 acres, or 13.4%, are vacant. Apartments are permitted by right on approximately 21% of the Town’s land area, representing approximately 426 acres. Approximately 55 acres, or 12.9%, are vacant. Targeted questionnaire outreach was conducted with individuals who regularly use the Town’s zoning code, including builders, real estate professionals, and other stakeholders. The feedback indicated that: • Missing middle housing types identified in the Comprehensive Plan are among the more difficult housing types to develop under the current regulations. • There is interest in higher-density housing and new types, including cottage courts. • Improvements to development and use standards are needed. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS There were a few slides in the presentation that provided data analysis with charts and graphs. The current dimensional standards may discourage development of smaller multifamily and missing middle housing products. Some missing middle housing products are not permitted by right. For example, townhomes in the R2 district require a special use permit. Other housing types, including cottage courts and stacked townhomes, are not specifically addressed in the current zoning code. The review found limited flexibility for incorporating residential uses within the CB and GB districts. It is recommended that this standard be amended. Residential uses in the CB district are subject to parking requirements, while commercial uses are not subject to the same requirements. The MUD and PUD districts may also be redundant and could potentially be consolidated. Chairman McCoy stated one of the items that could be most effective for boosting housing is public infrastructure investment. He then asked if there are items that were specially talked about regarding that. Mr. Callahan said that he needed to look back at the survey, but he believes that probably relates to stormwater management. This is a topic that comes up a lot. Chairman McCoy added that stormwater is not one that we would have a lot of control in with zoning. Mr. Callahan added that the Comprehensive Plan touched on in some targeted areas there could be shared stormwater management. Transportation access was also discussed. Water pressure continues to be a concern east of the Vinton War Memorial. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Issue 1 – Thriving Downtown 4 The first recommendation addresses the Comprehensive Plan goals of increasing housing downtown and facilitating a more active downtown through mixed-use development. It was proposed that residential-only buildings, without ground-floor commercial space, be permitted in the CB district outside of the central business core. Proposed text changes would also clarify where active ground-floor use is required, particularly along Lee Avenue and Pollard Street, and where ground-floor residential uses are permitted. Additional flexibility was proposed for residential development in the CB district regarding density, parcel size, setbacks, and parking requirements. Under this concept, building height would serve as the primary mechanism for regulating the intensity of development within the CB district. Mayor Grose asked for clarification on the recommendation in central downtown to not be residential and commercial and for the other section of town, be residential only. Mr. Callahan said that is correct because right now in section CB, the Town has to have commercial use. That limits the amount of housing that can be built downtown. Mr. Gavrilovic took over the presentation and continued with the remainder of the preliminary recommendations. He stated that these are concepts still and the goal is to show specifics so that everyone can understand the concepts, but feedback is needed before there is draft language. Issue 2 – Modernize Standards The second recommendation addresses Comprehensive Plan goals related to adaptive reuse, commercial corridor revitalization, and compatible infill development. A CAD analysis of typical lots was conducted to determine what changes to development standards could make additional housing types feasible. The analysis examined several missing middle housing types within the Residential-Business (RB) districts. The analysis indicated that a duplex could fit on a 5,000-square-foot lot, approximately 50 feet by 100 feet, if setback requirements were modified. Under the current standards, a duplex requires a 12,000-square-foot lot with a minimum lot width of 75 feet. It was also noted that the current standards require rental or condominium ownership and do not allow the lot to be subdivided so that the two homes could be sold separately. Sample floor plans were provided in the presentation to illustrate the potential development. The analysis considered the practical minimum lot size for a stacked townhome development. The analysis indicated that a stacked townhome development could fit on a 6,000-square- foot lot, approximately 60 feet by 100 feet, with modified setback requirements. The current standards already allow stacked townhomes as multifamily development with a 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size. The analysis also considered the practical minimum lot size for an “apartment home” development. 5 The analysis indicated that a six-unit building could fit on an approximately 11,250-square- foot lot, or approximately 75 feet by 150 feet, with modified setback requirements. The current standards already allow multifamily development with a 12,000-square-foot minimum lot size. Under the proposed concept, apartment homes would require a reduction in parking requirements from two spaces per unit for one- and two-bedroom units to approximately 1.5 spaces per unit, along with some reduction in setback requirements. Issue 3 – Missing Middle Housing The third recommendation addresses the Comprehensive Plan goals of providing additional housing types and increasing the supply of starter homes. Concepts were developed for the following zoning districts: • Residential-Business (RB); • General Business (GB); and • MUD/PUD districts. No comments or questions were offered. RESIDENTIAL-BUSINESS (RB) DISTRICT CONCEPT The proposed RB district concept would allow a greater diversity of missing middle housing types on lots that can accommodate them while protecting existing lower-density residential neighborhoods. The concept would also seek to ensure that sufficient space remains on smaller lots for on- site parking. Under the concept, small multifamily buildings that can fit within a single-family residential context would be permitted. Some reductions in parking requirements and setbacks would provide greater flexibility for housing development on smaller lots. A minimum lot dimension would be established for application of the proposed standards. Smaller lots would remain subject to the existing three-story and 35-foot height limitation. GENERAL BUSINESS (GB) DISTRICT CONCEPT The objectives of the GB district concept include allowing greater flexibility and density for housing while preserving capacity for commercial uses and protecting adjacent lower-density residential neighborhoods. The concept would also protect the availability of large parcels for commercial uses. A graduated height approach based on lot size was presented: • Small lots: Three stories or 35 feet; • Medium lots: Four stories or 45 feet for lots of at least 50 feet by 150 feet; and • Large lots: Five stories or 60 feet for lots of at least 100 feet by 150 feet. Some reductions in parking requirements and setbacks would provide additional flexibility for housing development. For parcels of 20,000 square feet or larger, the concept would require either ground -floor commercial uses with residential uses above or an entirely commercial development. 6 The concept was summarized as follows: • Lots smaller than approximately 50 feet by 150 feet would be limited to three stories or 35 feet. • Lots at least 50 feet by 150 feet would be eligible for four stories or 45 feet. • Lots at least 100 feet by 150 feet would be eligible for five stories or 60 feet. • Parcels of at least 20,000 square feet would require ground-floor commercial uses when residential uses are located above or would be required to remain entirely commercial. MUD/PUD DISTRICT CONCEPT The concept presented for the MUD/PUD districts would eliminate the PUD district if feasible. It was noted that there are currently no PUD districts mapped within the Town. The PUD district requires a larger district size than is feasible for most properties, and its development standards are not as robust or modern as those contained within the MUD district. The concept would continue the MUD district as a floating zone while revising its standards to encourage middle housing types. Any revisions would need to ensure that there are no negative impacts on properties already zoned MUD. The concept would also consider streamlining the development process to help stimulate economic development. No comments or questions were offered. FEEDBACK AND NEXT STEPS Participants were asked to provide feedback regarding the proposed project goals, stakeholder input, preliminary recommendations, and potential obstacles or issues that should be considered as the project moves forward. Feedback was also requested regarding whether additional issues should be added to the project or examined more closely. Participants were asked to provide guidance regarding the process for public input and community education during the coming months. There was a brief discussion on the McGimsey project and the RFP that was issued with the response from one developer. These zoning updates would help move this project forward. Mr. Peters shared that this is an opportunity for the group to establish what the new zoning standards should be for developable tracks like the McGimsey property. Chairman McCoy commented on the difficulty of financing missing middle housing. Next, he commented on the building codes for single-family and multifamily units, so while the zoning codes may change, if the building codes do not, this will not work. He then recommended a build-out type of analysis. 7 Mr. Callahan believes the maps that they showed give a good sense of the build-out. He added that there are building code issues such as driveway standards. Average household sizes are declining significantly which creates more interest in these housing types. Mayor Grose shared that households are changing and there is a need for these zoning changes. Current restrictions were put in place to prevent duplexes, but times have changed and there is a need for them. He recommended the use of modernized photos to show that duplexes have changed over time. Mrs. McMillan shared comments on how needs change and staff are looking into everything including driveway widths. She plans to involve the Public Works Department and the Fire Department/EMS. She acknowledged there is a lot to this process. Vice Mayor Mullins added that if the Town could build an apartment with an elevator, but each unit be one level, people may like that. Mayor Grose shared some comments on economic development and improving demographics. It is important to add more people to the Town and restrict parking to the back of units rather than the front. Mr. Callahan confirmed that parking can be at the back. Mr. Gavrilovic shared that it is important to look at lot sizes. Vice Chairman Jones commented on the older population that cannot maintain their homes. There was a brief discussion on the best ways to present this to the community with pictures being the top recommendation and moving parking to the back of the housing units. Mrs. McMillan shared details of the Community Open House which is scheduled for September 24, 2026. This meeting will provide an opportunity for additional community input regarding the proposed zoning code updates. The discussion ended at 5:13 p.m. and dinner was served. ADJOURNMENT Following dinner and there being no further business related to the work session, the meeting concluded. For Vinton Town Council, Council Member Liles made a motion to adjourn the meeting; the motion was seconded by Council Member McCarty. For the Vinton Planning Commission, Chairman McCoy made a motion to adjourn the meeting; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Benninger and carried by the following vote, with all members of the Town Council voting: Vote 5-0; Yeas (5) – Liles, McCarty, Mullins, Stovall, Grose; Nays (0) – None and all members of the Planning Commission voting: Vote 5-0; Yeas (5) – Liles, Benninger, McCoy, Mullen, Jones; Nays (0) - None. 8 The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. ATTEST: ______________________________ Megan Lawless, Town Clerk APPROVED: _________________________________ Bradley E. Grose, Mayor