[0:03] All right. With that, I will call to order the September 9th, 2026 meeting, Harris of a planning commission. We have a quorum, five of the members are present. Mr. Sites contacted us earlier today, sitting, standing under the weather, so he's not here. And Mr. Alcendi is still in Iraq, and we were setting up for him to participate virtually. And then Ms. Dynes, Ms. Dynes,

[0:32] Pointed out that oh, yeah, our bylaws say you get to do this twice a year

[0:36] He's not sure he's going to be back next month city decided to bank

[0:40] Keep this one in the bank

[0:43] So with that we've got it. We've got the other five of the skiers, so we have a quorum

[0:49] First item then is review of the August 12 minutes.

[1:00] I like to make a motion that we accept the minutes is submitted

[1:03] Second

[1:03] All right, move the Vice Chair Porter, seconded by Commissioner Kettler, discussion.

[1:11] All in favor say aye.

[1:13] Aye.

[1:14] Opposed?

[1:14] No.

[1:15] All right, those minutes stand approved.

[1:17] This day, you want to come in on the next slide for August 18th?

[1:20] Yes, thank you.

[1:21] So, for the August 18th meeting, I'd like to request one amendment to the draft minutes, which

[1:27] is the change in the heading, the date to reflect that it's a August 18th instead of July

[1:33] for what date it is.

[1:34] 21st.

[1:35] Yeah.

[1:35] 21st there, which is incorrect.

[1:38] And then also, there's another heading at the very top of the first page of the minutes

[1:42] also at the very top of the page.

[1:44] Right.

[1:45] Just two spots on the first page that we were given.

[1:47] So July 21.

[1:49] I think that looked August 18.

[1:51] Any other changes, comments or motions?

[2:00] Motion to approve with the amendment as presented by staff.

[2:03] Second.

[2:04] All right.

[2:05] with the amendments against by staff,

[2:07] I Commissioner Kepler,

[2:09] second by Commissioner Chezio.

[2:11] Discussion?

[2:13] All in favor say aye.

[2:14] Aye.

[2:15] Opposed, no.

[2:16] All right, minutes, August 18th,

[2:18] minute meeting approved.

[2:20] All right, which gives us some

[2:21] to new business, and I assume

[2:23] for A and B, we'll take it up together.

[2:25] We've got a request of Easter midnight school

[2:28] to approve or require another Wall Street parking spaces,

[2:32] and to amend the master plan in seven or one

[2:34] and eight or one park would drive

[2:37] All right, good evening commissioners.

[2:41] I'm a grab key planner with community development.

[2:43] These requests tonight are from Easter midnight school or EMS.

[2:47] They're requesting to request, they have to request tonight.

[2:49] They are requesting to establish a minimum number

[2:51] of off street parking spaces required for their school use

[2:57] and to approve an amendment to the school's

[2:59] institutional overlay master plan.

[3:03] EMS campus is, sorry, the EMS campus includes property

[3:06] zone, R3 and V2, with the institutional overlay district applied to the whole campus.

[3:15] This site is identified as institutional and limited commercially in the comprehensive

[3:18] plans of future land use guide, and here is an aerial of the site.

[3:24] Here's a little bit zoomed in aerial.

[3:27] The subject of property is the EMS campus.

[3:29] It is located at 701 and 802 Parkwood Drive and 1251 Virginia Avenue.

[3:35] The campus is approximately 26.3 acres and is located near Eastern men in the university.

[3:42] The property currently includes school building, athletic facilities, parking areas, and

[3:46] various associated campus uses.

[3:52] We'll talk about the school parking request first.

[3:54] The first request is related to the school parking.

[3:57] For school uses, the zoning ordinance requires planning commission to approve the appropriate

[4:02] number of required off-street parking spaces.

[4:07] EMS had used the Virginia Departments of Education's

[4:11] Guidelines for School Facilities in Virginia's Public Schools, sorry, mouthful, to calculate

[4:21] their parking needs. Those guidelines recommend parking for staff, additional parking for visitors,

[4:26] and student parking equal to one third of enrollment. Using the lower 10% of the suggested

[4:31] visited parking rate, EMS has calculated the need for 200 parking spaces for their school

[4:37] use.

[4:38] Staff supports the establishment of the 200 spaces at the minimum required parking for

[4:45] this school.

[4:49] To the master plan, the second part of the request is amendment to the master plan.

[4:52] EMS originally received a approval for an institutional master plan in 2002 that a

[4:59] approval address.

[5:00] The last campus expansions, parking, athletic fields, and provided limited zoning relief to

[5:05] setbacks. In 2016, the institutional overlay was amended and expanded by approximately two

[5:13] acres. That amendment supported the conversion of the former men and media building for the

[5:20] current elementary school use. Since then, internal property rights have been vacated, resulting

[5:26] parking in one single current parcel for the campus.

[5:30] Today's request would supersede the previous approval of master plans in the amendments.

[5:39] This is the proposed, this shows the proposed master plan map for EMS, sorry.

[5:48] The master plan identifies existing development as well as areas that have shown in yellow,

[5:53] the yellow buildings that are new buildings, there's new parking, existing parking,

[6:10] The master plan requires a narrative to be part of their request.

[6:15] The master plan narrative identifies up to 435 total parking spaces on the campus.

[6:22] Of the spaces, 200 of those spaces would be part of that.

[6:27] 200 spaces would satisfy the parking requirement for the school use.

[6:30] With remaining 235 spaces intended to accommodate additional uses on the property such as church services that are hosted, athletic events and other school or various special events that are hosted on this property.

[6:45] In addition to the number of parking spaces being requested the applicant is requesting flexibility as part of their master plan from the parking lot design standards required by section 10 325.4A.

[6:58] This code section requires two things.

[7:02] It requires a five foot separation between non-residential parking uses and adjoining residential

[7:07] property.

[7:08] EMU is zone residential so they would have to apply with non-residential parking being

[7:14] the school use.

[7:15] They would have to have additional separations with residential zoning next door.

[7:21] And they would also like to allow for parking to occupy more than 50% of the area between

[7:26] the kind of the building and the public street that's shown in the area circled on, circled in red on the screen.

[7:34] The code would not, that code section would not allow them to build their parking lot as it is shown.

[7:39] They would have to provide more green space for the parking.

[7:46] The application is also requesting flexibility from certain parking lot landscaping requirements as required by section,

[7:51] in my section is 10, 3, 30, 0.10, and 5 of the parking lot landscaping ordinance.

[7:58] The deviation would allow parking lot landscaping to be located either within parking lots as

[8:03] it is typically required within their required landscaping islands or within 15 feet of the

[8:10] final parking lot on the master plan it is shown by those green trees on the screen and there's

[8:15] a note on the map showing those are the general areas that parking lot landscaping may

[8:21] may be met in the future, allowing the flexibility allows the final design of the future parking

[8:27] in lots and drive-iles to be designed at a later date, while still requiring and maintaining

[8:33] that landscaping will be provided within the plan. Since individual parking lots have not

[8:37] been fully designed yet, the master plan areas show where the flexibility can be used.

[8:49] The master plan narrative also identifies existing private access assessments that are within

[8:53] the property as well as proposed. The best plan provides the existing private access

[9:02] easement from Virginia Avenue that serves Virginia and the Knight Missions and Annabest

[9:06] and Baptist Missions partners referred to as VMM and APM to provide access along their

[9:13] property to get to and from the sites. The narrative also provides a proposed easement

[9:20] that to address existing access concerns that are with, sorry, the narrative also identifies

[9:28] proposed easements to address an existing EMS access encroachment onto the VMM-AMP property.

[9:35] I had that on the screen there. That easement that seemed referred to is proposed.

[9:39] It is on the screen where, showing where people currently drive an access on the site today.

[9:44] And

[9:49] then the master plan also identifies a potential future access easement connecting EMS to Parkwood, connecting EMS and EMS.

[10:00] AMU through Parkwood Drive.

[10:04] The master

[10:07] plan also identifies a potential access easement, connecting AMU through the EMS property to Parkwood Drive. Located at 1194 Parkwood Park Road is the AMU property, where this is shown on the screen in that square. It is accessed in access easement that would provide the ability to get from AMU's property to Parkwood.

[10:32] from EMS. In this easement, it would only be provided if EME requested, but it is shown

[10:39] that it is able to be accommodated when and if they are to request it.

[10:47] And then, notice the master plan identifies a possible future connection to Mt. Clinton

[10:52] Pike to serve the campus and parking lot three identified on the map. As it is shown on

[10:58] the master plan map, the entrance to Mt. Clinton Pike does not meet city access management

[11:02] requirements. Staff has advised that any future access should be coordinated with the driveway

[11:08] across mountain clean pipe wherever feasible. And the applicant has noted on their master plan

[11:13] that the final entrance location and design will be determined at a later date subject to city

[11:17] review.

[11:23] Staff recommends approval of the two, we'll start with two rest. Staff recommends approval

[11:28] of the request to establish 200 off-street parking spaces as required for the minimum off-street

[11:34] school parking. And then staff also recommends approval of the EMS master plan amendment.

[11:40] The proposed master plan amendment is consistent with the proposed institutional overlay district.

[11:45] It supports and continues development of the existing private school campus. It provides

[11:50] additional educational support buildings, athletic facilities, parking open space areas to

[11:57] help support the school.

[11:58] I

[12:09] just want to question about the potential access from the EMU property are those currently those athletic fields that are adjacent to the property

[12:17] I ask you guys it's the athletic fields that are currently there's an existing

[12:22] I feel along this okay. Thank you

[12:25] Mr

[12:26] I have a question if I made other slide that shows the EMU that you're just showing where a connection could be made

[12:33] Yeah, it's not the location of the future easement yet to be determined

[12:37] That is okay, thank you for clarifying, it is a potential location of how it could be accomplished.

[12:43] Not the final, for sure, location, apologies.

[12:52] Anything else to say?

[12:57] Thank you.

[12:59] We'll now invite the applicant's representative to forward tell us if you can meet here.

[13:10] Good evening.

[13:11] Chair of all and commissioners and council member.

[13:17] Thank you for reviewing this application for us.

[13:21] and then considering the master plan amendment

[13:25] with the parking also requirements here.

[13:29] I think the only issue that I take with Meg,

[13:31] she said it was a square, but it wasn't a square,

[13:33] it was a rectangle.

[13:37] No, I mean, we're here and guess if you have any questions,

[13:39] we're happy to address them.

[13:43] But I don't know that we have anything that we want to present

[13:45] at this point.

[13:46] And everything, you know, what stuff was in it was, I think, percent of our interest.

[13:53] I guess I have a question about the request to relax the landscaping departments within

[14:01] the actual parking itself.

[14:03] Also, the five, the relaxing of the five foot setbacks with the residential areas.

[14:08] What is the rationale for that and, you know, what is the impact on your neighbors effectively?

[14:14] Yeah, that's that there's actually interesting because the the setback that we have I forget is the five feet of the 10 feet setback

[14:21] so

[14:23] It's really more a consideration in in the future or or or we have one of the parking lots

[14:27] That's just right adjacent to to EMU that that could be an issue

[14:31] But for the most part that's an issue for us at all because we are we are already more than ten feet back and most of the other parking

[14:38] Situation so it's really more in in one area that could be an issue

[14:42] So I think the consideration is to have, I mean, this is more ordinance requirement in terms

[14:48] of having a separation that you have a buffer between parking and then adjacent properties.

[14:53] And especially in this case, it's talking about residential, make sure there is no car lights

[14:58] and things like that.

[15:00] In fact, on a residential, residential, a neighborhood, residential views, but there's no residential views right now surrounding VMS. Can we bring the map of professional? I don't want you to point out where that? Yeah, if you want to meet the case. I think it's maybe here. Yeah, I can, but I can point. So on the left side right there, that's just a narrow part right there where that could be an issue. That's the only place right now that could be an issue. There's no really no other place right now.

[15:28] That's right adjacent to the athletic fields there for EMU.

[15:33] I'm one of the things that could be put in the areas is a fence, for example.

[15:38] Fence, I could satisfy that requirement.

[15:41] I don't know if fence that's much in terms of blocking light or anything like that,

[15:46] but it's satisfied the requirement.

[15:47] And if there was a larger residential neighborhood around this, I might have an opinion.

[15:51] There is, there is none, that's right.

[15:52] Yeah, I think EMU is considered the residential, I'm not sure what.

[15:57] on the other side of Parkwood Drive would be considered there would be some houses and that is of course of three so it's beyond beyond

[16:06] There on the left of the diagram where there's just the little grass the green strip before

[16:13] EMU's property begins

[16:16] There's then a pretty large green buffer between

[16:21] That boundary and EMU's turf soccer field

[16:25] Then the city also put in that very, very close to that boundary of the generators to save on electric demand.

[16:35] They're not shown because they're on e-mode part of it, but they're probably right around that boundary line as well.

[16:42] I know there's a close association between the school and the university.

[16:45] Would you be effectively offering up your parking for potential athletic use at e-mute as well?

[16:51] It happens. Yeah. It happens a lot. Yeah, there's a lot of collaboration between the entities there. Yeah, which makes sense.

[17:01] Which is a good way to use that parking lots to put in more parking lots. So yeah, I was thinking kind of where you were talking about the setback being limited.

[17:09] It was a long park would drive because of the added

[17:17] width there and making that closer to park. Right. And that's pretty much

[17:21] Check the quality of the area there.

[17:25] And the requirements, you know, 50% of that space,

[17:29] and we are not even there, we're not okay.

[17:31] So we're good, I think we'll be all right with that.

[17:34] And the all set of landscape also,

[17:37] that was the second part of your question,

[17:39] is also two, and that's one of the provisions

[17:42] that typically is allowed for, to allow

[17:46] to place landscape other than within the islands.

[17:50] In this case, even on our plan, we're kind of showing landscape within the islands.

[17:54] I feel like that if that's doable, we will do it, but otherwise that we're reserving the opportunity to good landscape around the edges also.

[18:02] Another point to make here is that most of these parking is already there, and from some point of redeveloping that parking, because there's existing parking, we don't have to comply with parking landscape requirements in that case.

[18:17] If it is new parking, new areas, yes, we do, that doesn't mean that we won't necessarily

[18:22] add more islands.

[18:23] As a matter of fact, this might actually show some more islands in the world where they

[18:26] are known right now.

[18:27] And that may occur that way or not.

[18:30] But right now we are reserving the option of having landscape surrounding the parking, the

[18:36] parking area.

[18:37] And it's within a limited space within 15 feet of that area, which, again, we don't want

[18:41] to encourage further out, in that sense, we're probably going to stay within that space

[18:44] anyways.

[18:45] So, and there's already some already, some landscape that is compliant with that.

[18:51] I don't know if that answers your question, but it does.

[18:53] Thank you.

[18:56] Just for clarification, based on the tables, you're really only adding 25 parking spaces,

[19:02] correct?

[19:03] It's just allocating 204 schools specifically.

[19:06] Yes.

[19:07] What it is, the parking spaces where they are added is because of some displacement of the bus

[19:12] parking, which right now is occurring on the tennis courts. I mean, all that area is hopefully

[19:18] to clean up all that and package a little bit better, you know, and this place and rearrange some

[19:23] parking. And we have some area there that was already impervious, semi impervious and we're

[19:29] reworking that and we're just gonna use that for parking and moving the parking devices onto the side

[19:35] where they can be more easily accessed in our front of these buildings.

[19:47] It seems to me that since it's already zoned R3 and V2 with institutional overlay,

[19:56] the

[19:57] The setbacks are normally associated with the resident.

[20:03] So, that is correct. So, we have a 10th setback throughout the property. So, that is that the setback, there was also, by master planning, we did that a couple of iterations ago and that we are, we're maintaining that question

[20:21] on the calculation of the parking spot. Getting back to that slide. I can't do it. Well, maybe I can. I don't know.

[20:36] And so, and I'm not terribly familiar with these guidelines.

[20:42] So, I was just wondering are these guidelines that in general, you know, by the state that you ought to follow or these, you know, if there's some other calculations that work here.

[20:55] So, I'm going to be familiar with them either.

[20:58] That's something that staff actually made us aware of.

[21:01] In the past, in the past, we had discussed certain numbers that EMU or EMS in this case

[21:06] was comfortable with saying this is a number of parking spaces that we need and that's what

[21:11] we were going with.

[21:12] But then staff pointed out during this time, it's like, well, we, you know, the requirements

[21:17] are an ordinance that we follow the guidelines of Virginia Public Schools.

[21:20] So that is, I think I don't know if it's a guidance or it's a requirement, a firm requirement

[21:25] but that is what we utilize for it and there is certainly more parking than what we need and you know

[21:35] that's no question about it. I never know somebody else can answer that. I can't answer that easily.

[21:40] We certainly have ample parking and often we'll kind of share our parking lots with you know

[21:45] VMRC if they're doing some asphalt work or EMU.

[21:50] I guess part of what I'm thinking is, I mean, it seems like the guideline suggests that

[21:56] every single staff member drives a single occupancy vehicle.

[22:00] Which is not true.

[22:01] Well, I mean, that was my question, so that's sort of it.

[22:08] These are recommendations for the Virginia Department of Education and they're not requirements

[22:13] and our ordinance does not require it.

[22:15] We've used it, we staff, have used this to help guide us in absence of other guidance or standards available.

[22:24] And I guess this is a question for staff. Is there a way to approve this with the option of them making less working if they so desire?

[22:39] I'm not familiar with this kind of request, so I'm not, I mean, be asking the question wrong.

[22:42] I suppose you could recommend less, but I guess you could, yeah, I don't understand.

[22:52] And just to be clear about my thinking, I mean, I don't want to delay this anymore or deny

[22:57] in any kind of fashion, but I'm wondering if there might be a way to provide some flexibility

[23:02] for the applicant.

[23:04] Yeah, we were comfortable with what they are comfortable accepting with the 200,

[23:09] because they're proposing to provide 435 total on the property and we thought

[23:15] well the requirements only 200 which is half of what they're going to be

[23:19] providing.

[23:21] It

[23:24] would mean they don't have to construct the other 235 if they do not, you know,

[23:30] our plan is only going to require the 200.

[23:33] I wasn't clear on this, I appreciate that and I don't know how many students drive

[23:41] Yeah, I found it interesting. One third of the enrollment of students. Well, these are

[23:47] what middle and high school and elementary.

[23:53] So if anybody, only the high school, I was

[23:57] high school included in this map as well. So they would be the only ones actually driving.

[24:04] Yeah, I don't think we would have close to 200 cars on campus every day in the park, but there

[24:15] are events that fill the parking.

[24:18] I was going to ask how often you would get up to that 435.

[24:23] Well, yeah, I would say rarely what happens is particular event spaces will be too small.

[24:29] So you know if we're playing a local public school the gym lot isn't quite

[24:35] adequate so it spills out front or if we have a large event in the auditorium

[24:40] that spills over to the dining area parking but people just need to walk

[24:45] further which is what happens now. And you host a couple churches on site

[24:51] Crankings as well. Sometimes those I mean I've seen those party lots of pretty. Yes. Yes.

[25:00] Go ahead. Go ahead. It sounds like, and unfortunately, I couldn't go this like this. So, forgive me. It sounds like some of those uses we're talking about, gym uses and general school uses and church uses. It sounds like those would tend to be at different times, depending on the events. They are.

[25:26] But they tend to fill in, whichever parking lot they are.

[25:29] But they're utilizing, so that's the interesting part also.

[25:34] Yeah, I mean, I've seen all the parking sometimes, but it's very rare to have everything

[25:38] full.

[25:39] That's a question about.

[25:46] Yeah.

[25:46] I just want to ask a quick, also a quick question about, it looks like there's some discussion

[25:50] about changing the circulation pattern for a cup and drop-off.

[25:56] Yeah.

[25:58] There would be a limited amount of parking at the very front of the school for guests.

[26:04] And, you know, we had a lot of visitors and guests were an enrollment-based school.

[26:09] We want families to come visit, and it's kind of disappointing when they can't park

[26:13] in the front.

[26:14] And they have to find their way to the front entrance by parking in the gym or the dining

[26:18] hall.

[26:19] So in the future, and again, you know, parking isn't real exciting money for donors to

[26:27] give toward.

[26:28] so I'm not promising a parking being a high priority because we do meet our

[26:34] general needs with parking. But long-term we would love to have much more

[26:39] parking in the front and that would allow a connecting without going out in

[26:45] the park would drive from the gym parking lot to the dining hall parking lot with

[26:51] kind of angular parking that would designate the direction of traffic flow.

[26:56] So sometimes we have people going backwards in our current circular drive because parking

[27:04] is parallel, so it's hard to know which way should I go if I'm a guest and not familiar

[27:10] with the campus?

[27:11] So you would make it a one-way?

[27:12] It would be a one-way.

[27:14] Great.

[27:15] That would be a great idea.

[27:17] Any eventual desire to try to connect the elementary school in a driving way where you

[27:25] drive from one side to the other. My only concern being just that I know there's

[27:29] like a gestion on 32, particularly in early morning and in the afternoon for pickup.

[27:35] And I would be concerned about traffic trying to leave the campus through the

[27:41] elementary school or just curious if there'd be any attempt to try to do that.

[27:46] Topography really doesn't allow for that and is why we have forced

[27:51] worst parents of elementary students to park in the gym parking lot.

[27:57] So there really is very limited really for handicap accessibility or elderly, only there

[28:03] at the elementary side.

[28:05] And we like kids to walk, so we're good with the footbridge.

[28:10] Thank you.

[28:11] It looks like, and I'm just on Google Maps over here, there's about five.

[28:17] Oh no.

[28:18] Yeah.

[28:18] for especially that's again we partner with

[28:22] What's now called in that mission? Yeah, Virginia Mennonite missions with that parking lot

[28:27] pretty regularly

[28:31] And and some of the one of the plans also for the for the loop behind the school was to also provide for a Q and Q

[28:38] Inline there for the elementary school

[28:40] So that's part of it also trying to get a traffic in there instead of anybody who went out to 42 which yeah

[28:46] I mean, this actually concentrates everything in two entrances.

[28:50] It's better than, I mean, right now, there are like one, two, three, four, or five,

[28:55] therefore, there are four entrances.

[28:57] So we'll limit the two, well, it will be three with a double entrance over here,

[29:01] but on the west side, but we're trying to minimize that also because of conflict and

[29:07] traffic, and then having a better circulation works for everybody in and out.

[29:10] Because I haven't, having also a child before there, I know how it is.

[29:15] some of the people trying to get out of this.

[29:17] It makes it a little bit difficult.

[29:19] So yeah, I think it's great in that too.

[29:26] It's just all seems really complicated for something

[29:29] that ought to be fairly simple.

[29:32] I think it was a good question.

[29:36] But you know what you're doing?

[29:37] So I'm like, you've planned it well, I guess.

[29:40] Thank you.

[29:42] Art, before you step away, please

[29:45] both state your name and trust me.

[29:46] I apologize.

[29:47] Thank you all for your comment with comment engineer and we're presenting EMS and Paul layman head of school at Easterman night school

[29:55] Thank you. Thank you. All right

[30:00] So we're on the roof there with a thousand. Right. Still there. Yep. Working well. All right. We're ready to keep on. All right. With that, I will open the public hearing on this matter, on these matters. By dating room, once to speak, come forward. And anyone not physically here can call in 540-437-2687. And please, please come forward.

[30:34] Good evening, members of the commission.

[30:36] My name is Ron March on the owner of Sitmeats at Harrisonburg, we're a dog training franchise.

[30:42] I've been working with the city zoning staff for.

[30:46] Chair Baugh, I think he, I think you mean to come to the mayor's office to talk about the matter.

[30:50] Oh, sorry.

[30:52] All right.

[30:53] We'll give you a try to give it a try.

[30:56] In the meantime, I'll be looking the back.

[30:59] You get five, four, zero, four, three, seven, two, six, eight, seven.

[31:02] For anybody on the wishes.

[31:03] Get a comment.

[31:04] On the proposed plan, the best plan amendments

[31:07] for Eastern Midnight School and parking issue.

[31:12] Appreciate your enthusiasm, though.

[31:13] Yeah.

[31:21] Okay.

[31:22] Is that a?

[31:23] There's a lot of clear on the windows.

[31:36] I guess

[31:41] my question comes down to be take these separate layer together.

[31:46] Any objection to taking it together?

[31:50] Unless somebody wants to speak further on separately.

[31:53] So I don't mean the only thing I'm thinking is since we recently had a work session in

[31:59] large part on parking and on this kind of issue, I am thinking again about why this is

[32:08] before planning commission and I'm struggling to think of a reason why I would ever vote

[32:13] no for something like this.

[32:17] So I think that's something to consider in this or any reform process.

[32:24] Yeah.

[32:24] I have a similar question.

[32:25] Why do we even need to go through this?

[32:29] Sorry.

[32:29] I mean, in the ordinances that it requires to, but that's correct.

[32:33] There ought to be some way of streamlining, I guess I would say.

[32:38] You can do what you want with your parking, I don't know.

[32:40] Staff will speak to that.

[32:41] Well, we've proposed some amendments from the last work session we were seeking your input on what those numbers and

[32:48] values should be if we should just, I think what we've proposed is for public schools.

[32:55] K-312, that it would be determined based on the public school entity, for private schools, we would consider their parking with their special exception review.

[33:08] consider a parking plan at that time.

[33:12] I'm going off of them right here. I don't

[33:15] know that we've resolved the colleges and universities questions. Right we

[33:19] haven't resolved that part yet but still working throughout. Yeah meaning for

[33:23] private colleges and universities.

[33:27] I mean is there I mean it might

[33:31] be a number

[33:32] but out of the existing ordinance we've got a master plan and you're gonna

[33:36] the change in, you've got to come tell them to come out and, like so, I hope it will be

[33:43] part of the looking at streamlining for things that look like they could be handed

[33:48] and straight away with that. Can't do that tonight.

[33:52] That's right not to make a mess this motion. I move that we approve the request from Eastern

[33:57] Minonite School to approve the required number of off-street parking spaces and also approve

[34:05] their request to amend the master plan at 7-1-801 Parkwood Drive and at 12-51 Virginia Avenue.

[34:13] Second. All right, there's a motion by Vice Chair Porter. Number of seconds, I'll give it to

[34:20] Commissioner Chessier and this has to take up both of these together. I'm getting asked before.

[34:26] No objection to that. All right, so voice vote again, we're taking both these matters together.

[34:32] but that was both wrong, all please.

[34:37] Commissioner Jezior.

[34:38] Hi.

[34:39] Vice Chair Porter.

[34:41] Hi.

[34:42] Council Member Dan.

[34:43] Hi.

[34:44] Commissioner Catler.

[34:45] Hi.

[34:46] Chair Bob.

[34:47] Hi.

[34:48] So these go forward with favorable recommendations.

[34:52] City Council, October 15th, that'd be right.

[34:56] I anticipate it.

[34:57] Go ahead and do it again.

[35:00] Okay. Yes, that is correct. Thank you very much. All right. Next two items will be taken together separately. They would be separately. Okay, then we'll start with item 4c. Requests to amend the definition of dwelling single family within the zoning ordinance to include qualifying manufactured homes.

[35:26] Good evening. My name is near Muscle. I'm a planner. What community development?

[35:39] Okay, so this is the first

[35:40] First of two zoning ordinance amendments that are as a result of recent changes in state legislation.

[35:48] So in 2026, the General Assembly of Virginia enacted SB 346 and its companion bill HB 655,

[35:56] which amended sections 15.2-2247 and 15.2-2290 of the code of Virginia related to manufactured housing.

[36:07] This requires localities to allow the placement of manufactured homes in all zoning districts where site built housing is permitted and prohibits localities from treating manufactured homes differently.

[36:21] If approved, the zoning ordinance amendments will bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with the code of Virginia.

[36:28] The

[36:31] change mimics the language in the code, which is just simply adding manufactured homes to the definition of single-family dwelling.

[36:43] So this use, the part there in yellow orange, is what is added to the definition that the use includes a manufactured home provided that the manufactured home is one converted to real property in accordance with the code of Virginia.

[36:58] to construct it so that the certificate of occupancy is issued within five years of the date of manufacture and placed on individual lots.

[37:08] So, to convert to real property according to that section 46.253.1, the advocate would have to remove all mobility equipment, surrender their DMV title, and file an affidavit of

[37:25] We would have to establish procedures to work with them to ensure that they can comply with the state requirements while at the same time complying with building codes.

[37:37] There's a little bit of a check in and a going there, but we will work that out with the permitting process.

[37:45] foundation permits would still be, building permits would still be required for the foundation

[37:49] and for the placement and then utility connections would require their permits as well.

[37:58] The second item there that the certificate of occupancy be issued within five years of

[38:03] the data manufacturer means that when a unit receives that certificate of occupancy it is

[38:11] there's no older than five years.

[38:14] And then finally being placed on individual lots means it's a single family home on its

[38:19] own lot, not a manufactured park.

[38:24] The other section, 15.2, 2247 is not affected.

[38:32] Our zoning ordinance already complies with the state regulations.

[38:37] So staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment.

[38:40] Do you have any questions?

[38:44] I don't remember exactly the way this came from federal state or just technology advancements.

[38:53] As I recall somewhere, many factored homes are approved or beginning to be made without the chassis or any other mobility equipment as it said,

[39:04] so that they're designed to be just permanently installed on a foundation.

[39:09] So in any case it either has to be removed or it doesn't have it in the first place, right?

[39:14] Well the chassis would remain, it's just the mobility equipment that would be removed.

[39:19] I mean in the love of our future, not in the future of won't even have the chassis for the mobility.

[39:25] So the state definition and our definition includes that chassis.

[39:34] the federal changes that have still haven't gone through the whole rule-making process

[39:42] from what I understand of the rule that HUD put out would be that the second story,

[39:48] there are some manufactured homes that are two stories and that second story would

[39:53] not be required to have a chassis, but that first story still would.

[39:57] Good.

[40:00] But it's still in rulemaking, it's still in flux.

[40:05] Yeah, I think that's where I was thinking of it. The new road to home federal legislation. Yeah, but this zoning ordinance amendment brings us into compliance with the state regulation. Okay, thanks. Which means we don't really have an option. Pass it. Yeah, that was my question. There are options on here. No, you don't have to do it. You'll just be bound by it, even though you didn't.

[40:29] I read this as confusion.

[40:35] Anything else to stand?

[40:38] All right, thank you.

[40:40] And I will go ahead and open public hearing on this.

[40:44] So anyone who wishes to come forward to speak on this provoked proposed zoning ordinance,

[40:48] please come forward.

[40:50] Otherwise, we'll keep in line open for a minute or so.

[40:55] 540-437-2687.

[41:38] All right, I've got a signal that no one's calls.

[41:45] I'm excited for the possibilities of lowering housing costs and also we have to.

[41:53] And I think this is a recognition that manufactured housing is the quality is improved significantly.

[42:01] There's some of the standards that some of these bills are being held to now are extremely high.

[42:06] And I think it's a wise choice on behalf of the legislature to make this opportunity available for people

[42:14] and eliminate some of these barriers to folks

[42:18] being able to live in these types of homes.

[42:24] And I think when more of these get built,

[42:26] I think people will probably have no idea

[42:28] that they are a manufacturer.

[42:29] Right.

[42:31] Or note that there was a time

[42:32] if you brought up these issues.

[42:39] Yes, I'm glad it's becoming a non-issue.

[42:46] Motion to recommend approval

[42:48] of the zoning ordinance amendment

[42:49] as presented by staff.

[42:50] Second.

[42:52] All right, moved by commission.

[42:53] and seconded by Council Member Denny. Any additional discussion?

[42:59] All right, roll call of it, please.

[43:01] Council Member Denny.

[43:02] Aye.

[43:04] Commissioner Dutton.

[43:05] Aye.

[43:06] Commissioner Dutton.

[43:08] Aye.

[43:08] Vice Chair Mourn.

[43:09] Aye.

[43:10] Chair Mourn.

[43:11] Aye.

[43:11] All right, so it goes forward to see Council favor for recommendation.

[43:18] It gets us to item 4D.

[43:21] Request them in zoning wardeners to reduce them in one way with their single family detached dwellings in the R8 district.

[43:30] Okay, and you're a must awful planner with community development.

[43:34] In this case, General Assembly of Virginia enacted HV 1212, which amended the code of Virginia by adding section 15.2-2286.2 relating to small lot residential zoning districts.

[43:49] requirements. The requirement is that a single family dwelling that every jurisdiction

[43:57] have a zoning district that allows for lots that are do not exceed 3,000 square feet

[44:06] and a minimum lot with not to exceed 30 feet. The R8 district already allows for lot sizes

[44:13] of 2,800 feet the lot width is currently 35 feet so it would be a matter of lowering it to 30 feet.

[44:20] The change then is simply that changing the lot width from 35 to 30.

[44:28] That's a minimum, right?

[44:30] Yes.

[44:32] And this would bring us in compliance with the state regulations.

[44:35] So staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment.

[44:38] And again, we don't have to, but we're bound by, so I might as well.

[44:50] I guess I'm going to ask staff, is this something that you generally support?

[44:54] I mean, it's a small change, but it is an important change.

[44:58] And I'm just curious, you would have-

[45:01] There are some concerns with driveways. Yeah, I was wondering about that. Does that mean they might not have room for a driveway or however it might, however the layout might work? If they build it where it's 30 feet of lot width, that means there's just a lot more driveways serving each of the single-family homes. And it's also, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Russ, your findings are that this isn't a

[45:30] And a number, a lot with number that is uncommon in the state, if doesn't exist.

[45:37] Yeah, virtually every urban area, by right districts, rather than a district you'd have to rezone to, 50 feet wide, is 50 or 60 feet wide, is relatively standard.

[45:53] Charlottesville's the only one with something smaller at 40 in the house, but most urban

[46:01] areas, yeah, their by-right districts are on 50 and then you rezone and address things

[46:08] like driveways in the process.

[46:12] Also, again, you may not be able to speak to this, but I just find it interesting that communities

[46:17] that are less than 50,000 citizens are exempted from this are not included in this change

[46:22] I don't understand the rationale in terms of and you may not be able to explain it either. I don't need them. I'm sorry. Yeah, I have a question.

[46:34] Yeah, it captures us.

[46:36] It's a bit more than 50. Yeah, it captures up. We're right around there. And I haven't looked at it lately.

[46:42] The Charlotte's Villainville, the two that are around their size.

[46:46] And everybody else is either considered more so, but less.

[46:51] Yeah, my sense that I mean, I'm pretty sure because I knew a situation in Richmond where I think it was especially used to be.

[46:56] prevent item to do lower.

[46:59] And I think, and my instinct tells me that it's driven

[47:03] by the more urban jurisdictions.

[47:06] And yeah, you can make an argument

[47:09] that it really wouldn't be the end of the world for Harrison

[47:13] Murray to

[47:16] 35 would probably be OK, as well.

[47:20] But please feel free to lobby your local market

[47:25] representatives in Richmond to amend this if you think

[47:27] I think that's appropriate because we got what we got, but yeah, I know some picnic

[47:33] bridge, but I know some infill projects where I don't know, they might be 30 feet, I mean,

[47:39] they've managed to get some sort of infill in sort of older areas with sort of narrow town

[47:46] house kind of structures on it, so if somebody obviously thought it was a good idea, I'm just

[47:52] to everyone.

[47:54] I don't know.

[47:56] Anything else on staff?

[48:00] All right, thank you.

[48:02] Now I'll open public hearing into this.

[48:05] And by anyone here who wishes to speak to this proposed,

[48:08] there's only one that's amendment to come forward.

[48:10] Otherwise the phone line is open.

[48:13] 540-437-2687.

[48:53] I'm getting a signal of no call.

[48:54] So we'll close public hearing.

[49:02] At a certain point I wonder how meaningful.

[49:06] Reducing the minimum amount with, or having a minimum amount with, it is small, lot, single family home

[49:15] Developments just because the effective limit there is really side-setbacks

[49:21] Because I mean in this even if you have a side-setback of five feet, you have a house. It's only that's 20 feet wide and

[49:28] Not a whole much more small or you can make it narrow narrowly at that point

[49:33] So I mean the driveway point I think is well taken and I think that in the zoning reform process there's probably going to be needing more discussion about what functional changes might be needed.

[49:50] I'm thinking in particular of like the townhouse regulations.

[49:56] But in terms of this change, I mean, once again.

[50:00] We have to do so to make sure a little difference.

[50:03] Yeah, and especially since all right, it's also designed to be higher density, right? Like, duplex is by right, and I bring that right. And can you apply for a triplex? I don't remember exactly how that goes. You can apply to have a town home. Yeah, town a road town homes. Right. So they're obviously the minimum you think wider than that. And are there minimums for say a duplex side by side or a town home?

[50:35] There's a lot area dimensions and a lot width dimensions.

[50:39] So this is strictly for the single family that it's minimum 30.

[50:42] That's correct.

[50:46] And I doubt that there's an answer to this, but do we know how many potential infield

[50:51] lots in our community might be affected by this that might make it easier for someone to be

[50:55] able to build?

[50:55] I mean, do we have a sense?

[50:57] I don't know if there's a.

[50:58] It's probably a very involved question, but just.

[51:04] be curious to find out if it actually affects anything.

[51:07] In this district, for RA, there's only a handful of lots

[51:12] that are that zoning district right now.

[51:17] And very few of them are a string of RA properties

[51:21] where you'd be able to go from five lots to six or something.

[51:25] So in practice, I don't know that there's really

[51:30] anything that could squeezed out of this.

[51:32] Yes. Well, are there areas that are zone R8? I've only seen it as a spot rezoning.

[51:39] That's correct. That's how properties become zone R8. When we created the R8 district,

[51:45] we did not, on the city's initiative zone properties, R8. So people have had to come

[51:52] through a rezoning process to become R8.

[51:57] Can I ask what that looks like in the proposed rewrite? I know that might be given a little

[52:01] over the head, but what would that look like?

[52:03] What would that zone be called and?

[52:07] It would be the earth, I'm getting the urban residential

[52:11] district.

[52:12] Is that the right name kind of urban neighborhood?

[52:15] Yeah, residential district.

[52:18] So that would impact more properties.

[52:21] Some of the more older, non-conforming properties

[52:24] that are already fairly close,

[52:25] and some maybe a little bit wider.

[52:35] I mean, I'm not sure I'm impactful since of being,

[52:36] that I appreciate the mindset of our legislature attempting to try to make it easier to build in general.

[52:45] It seems like that that's a, particularly with the ADU change, I just appreciate the fact

[52:52] that there's some attempt to try to simplify the process, make it a little bit more accessible,

[52:57] easier to be able to build, and even though this is kind of nibbling around the edges,

[53:01] is it is, it widens the strike zone, never so slightly.

[53:04] So I appreciate it.

[53:06] Yeah, I can't help but think it really, really what this is

[53:09] targeted with, which kind of does, does it really apply to us

[53:12] in our current big regions?

[53:14] I go back to places I know of where this has come up

[53:16] in Richmond's where you have older residential and narrow

[53:20] lots with zero setbacks.

[53:26] And somebody wants to do this and when it's something

[53:29] and especially use permit item, you get a lot of objection to it, just because people

[53:34] just sort of decided they don't want another house of the neighborhood.

[53:39] And that kind of, you know, when you're sitting there going, well, they want to build one

[53:42] in there.

[53:43] Why not let them?

[53:46] I can't help but think that those types of things are the driver here again.

[53:50] We start saying, where is our section of old zero setback, where is it eventually this

[53:55] And I

[54:00] agree with you, Vice Chair Porter, in terms of the general direction assembly is

[54:05] taken with respect to some of the land use options and increasing housing options.

[54:12] It seems like relatively modest changes, keeping in mind that it's a wide variety of localities

[54:18] that's being affected, but I think they're modest steps to the right direction.

[54:24] And that's the thing about being a deal in rural stages when they're making these things

[54:28] they have to, they plot everywhere, or although in this case it's cities that are over

[54:33] 50,000 people.

[54:34] Well, and there was the case where we considered it overreach, leaving on the ML influence,

[54:42] the proposed legislation that said you must be able to build by right, multi-family and

[54:48] all commercial districts and whatever variations it were.

[54:50] We said, wait a minute, that would negate what we do in Planning Commission and Dunning.

[54:57] So we in general want to...

[55:00] From preserved local authority, however, I do appreciate the state making these efforts to make it easier to build housing.

[55:08] We're

[55:13] supposed to check the Charlottesville and Danville, but we can cut.

[55:17] So it is similar, after us it's much worse, so yeah.

[55:20] Danville's population has actually decreased considerably over the last two years, yeah.

[55:26] And Charlottesville is smaller than us.

[55:28] That was a surprise.

[55:31] The city limits, the metropolitan areas are larger.

[55:34] True, right.

[55:35] The population of the city yet.

[55:40] Motion to recommend approval of his only ordinance amendment as presented by staff.

[55:44] Second.

[55:44] All right.

[55:45] Move by.

[55:46] Connect.

[55:46] Commissioner Kettler.

[55:48] Seconded by Vice Chair Porter.

[55:50] For the discussion.

[55:52] We'll call the police.

[55:56] Aye.

[55:57] Vice Chair Porter.

[55:58] Aye.

[55:59] Vice Chair Porter.

[55:59] Vice Chair Judger.

[56:00] Aye.

[56:01] House member Dan.

[56:02] Aye.

[56:02] Chair Bob.

[56:03] Aye.

[56:04] So those two goes forward to City Council with a favorable recommendation.

[56:09] All right.

[56:10] Which gets us over the new business other items first.

[56:13] Request initiates zoning ordinance amendment to sections 10-3-110-H related to refuse collection

[56:21] facility.

[56:21] Yes, thank you.

[56:22] So, this is a request for a zoning ordinance amendment, but I'm going to give a little

[56:26] bit of background of how, why we're doing it, so I'm going to talk about the solid waste

[56:31] ordinance in section 6238 of the solid waste ordinance.

[56:37] It requires that apartment and townhome developments of six or more dwelling units provide their

[56:42] own private refuse collection, which move the city doesn't pick up from them.

[56:47] Over the last year, maybe year and a half, we've had some conversations with some local

[56:53] smaller developers who have expressed the expense of having to provide the dumpster facilities

[57:00] or private collection facilities, not just for the area that's dedicated for the storage

[57:05] of the trash collection, but also for the vehicles, the dumps, private dump trucks coming onto

[57:12] the site and having the maneuver to do the pickup. So our staff at community development

[57:18] have been working and having communications with the public works department staff and

[57:22] I think Mr. Russ was in one of those meetings with us as well just brainstorming on what we

[57:27] could do to change what the city's requirements are. So alongside a zoning ordinance amendment,

[57:37] which I'll talk about in a moment, we're also working on drafting a solid waste ordinance amendments to be presented to City Council that would allow for developments of townhomes and apartments that have,

[57:52] let me make sure I say the number right, I think it's six between six and 11 units, that option to request City collection.

[58:04] So city total service the ordinance amendment to the zoning ordinance would be to apply the screening and

[58:13] location requirements for where the storage of the total cans are. So that if they collect them all, you know,

[58:21] together in an area, they're still going to have to screen them and place them at the same locations on their

[58:27] property that we would limit private collections to. So that is what we are proposing to bring to you all

[58:33] in the future and requests that you allow us to initiate.

[58:42] So at this be changing in from one large dumpster to individual cans at each unit?

[58:49] So yes, and also know that when somebody has to provide private collection service,

[58:56] they could provide private totor service, but we usually see dumpsters.

[59:00] But there have been a few developments that have proposed private.

[59:03] So, but generally I think what we would see is instead of the dumpster as you describe,

[59:09] we would have a collection of city toters on the property.

[59:14] And then let me add also that when it comes to trash collection day,

[59:18] the residents would have to pull their totor cans to the public street because our city sanitation crews do not enter upon the private property to do the property.

[59:27] That was going to be my question, is if there was a private street that had been created

[59:31] to create the development, whether you would come onto that street or not.

[59:34] We would not.

[59:39] Well, it's not a question, but it's a statement.

[59:43] My day job is with Habitat for Humanity, and we build a lot of, we'll be building a lot

[59:48] of these types of smaller developments.

[59:51] And this is a wonderful thing to provide some flexibility to allow people to have this option.

[59:59] Some of the

[1:00:00] These general, you know, a lot of times when we're developing, we want to sell all these properties off and then we don't want to have an HOA or some other overlay to be able to handle things like trash collection. So this allows people to effectively to access the city services and pay the fees. And I think it's an outstanding change. So thank you for considering it.

[1:00:28] I'm going to go ahead and make motion now. If no one else has anything they want to say. Okay, it's just a little longer. I move that the planning commission

[1:00:36] initiated consideration of zoning ordinance amendments to the city of Harrisonburg zoning ordinance to amend provisions related to a refuse collection of facilities, the planning commission finds that such amendments are required by the public necessity convenience general welfare and good zoning practice and hereby direct staff to prepare appropriate draft ordinances for public hearings recommendations in accordance with section 15.2-2286 of the code of Virginia.

[1:01:04] Yeah.

[1:01:05] Second.

[1:01:06] All right.

[1:01:07] Moved by Commissioner Kepler.

[1:01:08] Seconded by Commissioner Jezio.

[1:01:10] You know the discussion.

[1:01:14] Roll call vote, please.

[1:01:15] Commissioner Jezio.

[1:01:17] Hi.

[1:01:18] Council member dead.

[1:01:19] Aye.

[1:01:20] Vice Chair for.

[1:01:21] Aye.

[1:01:21] Vice Chair Kepler.

[1:01:22] Aye.

[1:01:23] Chair for.

[1:01:23] Aye.

[1:01:26] Go forth and talk.

[1:01:27] Aye.

[1:01:28] All right.

[1:01:29] Item five.

[1:01:30] Be consider appointing Nermus Sofil.

[1:01:33] Sofil has planning commissions.

[1:01:35] Deputy Secretary.

[1:01:36] I want to say aye.

[1:01:43] So as you all are aware, the by-law state that the secretary would serve at the request

[1:01:49] of the commission and that they be elected every January, currently in the stage among

[1:01:54] Tigny is that person who was appointed by the planning commission in January, and she's

[1:01:59] been absent for the past few meetings until she returns we'd like to ask that you appoint

[1:02:05] Ms. Soffold to be the deputy secretary.

[1:02:09] Sir, motion to that final.

[1:02:11] That's how to move.

[1:02:13] Second.

[1:02:14] Thank you.

[1:02:15] Mr. Kettler, seconded by Vice Chair Porter.

[1:02:21] Waste mode, all the favor say aye.

[1:02:23] Aye.

[1:02:23] Opposed no.

[1:02:25] Congratulations.

[1:02:27] All right.

[1:02:28] Item 5C, discuss future amendments

[1:02:30] to planning commission bylaws.

[1:02:32] Yes, so included in your packet is a copy of the bylaws

[1:02:37] that was last amended in June of 2022.

[1:02:42] I'd like to propose, you all don't wouldn't vote on it today,

[1:02:45] but I'd like to kind of use this opportunity

[1:02:48] to one propose an amendment and also open the opportunity

[1:02:52] to see if there's other amendments that you all would like

[1:02:55] to entertain that we could present to you all

[1:02:57] at the next meeting.

[1:02:58] What I'd like to propose is an amendment to section 4.4-1

[1:03:03] related to the item that you all just voted on

[1:03:05] about the secretary wanting to amend it to state to change the language so that it would

[1:03:12] state that the director of community development would designate an employee of the city of

[1:03:17] Harrisonburg to serve as secretary and that would address any kind of future turnover

[1:03:21] things that mean absences that we might have. And then we would amend section 42 to make

[1:03:27] it all work together as well. But is there any other section that you all and I could give

[1:03:34] all another week or so to kind of think about it and get back to us if anything

[1:03:37] comes up.

[1:03:48] Yeah yeah and then we'll bring back to you the amendments at the

[1:03:52] next meeting.

[1:03:58] Thank you. All right next item is public comment so we will

[1:04:02] invite anybody to come forward who wants to speak to us on anything that's not a

[1:04:08] matter on tonight's agenda so please march if you want come forward again and we

[1:04:13] We also have the phone line open for anybody who wants to call in.

[1:04:17] Again, that number is 540-437-268-7.

[1:04:23] Yeah, I apologize for interrupting earlier.

[1:04:25] I've never done this before, so, yeah, I'm Ron March.

[1:04:29] I own, it means that Harrison Byrd, we're a dog training business.

[1:04:32] I've been trying to find a location to do on site facility style dog training, which

[1:04:39] is a little bit different than what most people know is dog training since December.

[1:04:44] and unfortunately the M1 zoning has not worked out too well for me and so what I

[1:04:51] wanted to bring to you today is that I believe that there's a running to an

[1:04:55] issue with the current that the current ordinance did not anticipate.

[1:05:00] Currently, the city classifies paid dog training in the same category as kennel operations. I don't operate a kennel, I don't operate a daycare, we don't house dogs overnight. So that kind of puts me in a tough place.

[1:05:17] Dogs come to me in the morning, usually around 9 a.m., and then go home to their family in the evening after I get done providing training to the families well.

[1:05:26] So generally, I'm asking the council to consider whether this low impact use should be continued

[1:05:32] to be governed under like a high volume use, like canals.

[1:05:37] And then first on comparison, B2 already permits a lot of animal related businesses, vets,

[1:05:43] rumors, the retail stores have training right within the retail store, which would be a much

[1:05:49] higher volume than a situation like mine or a similar business.

[1:05:53] And then we also have puppy cells that are allowed, which is pretty high volume for things

[1:05:59] that you guys might consider waste, etc.

[1:06:04] Ultimately, what I'm really asking of the group today is to consider separating professional

[1:06:11] dog training without boarding from canal use.

[1:06:14] And I would like to seek this commission's feedback and permission to work with the zoning

[1:06:19] team to create a draft amendment to well animal services would be considered.

[1:06:30] Question of staff just related to exactly the point that was brought up that, for

[1:06:34] example, the pet smart has a training facility right within its store.

[1:06:42] And I'm not, I don't have the zoning map in front of me, but what is the zoning for

[1:06:46] that facility and how is that different than what he's proposing?

[1:06:52] So it is zone B2, the principal use of the pet smart would be the pet store.

[1:07:00] Yeah, retail.

[1:07:00] I can't remember.

[1:07:01] It's like a retail use.

[1:07:03] If they, I'm not aware that they have access.

[1:07:06] I know they have accessory uses in there.

[1:07:10] Wasn't aware of the dog training, but I suppose we would treat that as an accessory use to the,

[1:07:15] I'm not sure.

[1:07:16] And this would probably even low how many dogs would you be working with on a given day if I live my wireless dream or anybody that would have a

[1:07:23] Similar business right because you guys have to consider all people that would start this I might have 10 dogs in a facility

[1:07:29] And that wouldn't mean I would need to have four to five trainers. So they're supervised the entire time

[1:07:35] It's not like a daycare where we have one person managing 10 dogs you go to lunch. It's on you know supervised

[1:07:41] were high end obedience, high distraction obedience.

[1:07:46] Now most of our time is spent in public spaces

[1:07:48] because that's where dogs have the most distraction.

[1:07:50] But the facility is very useful for dogs

[1:07:53] that are aggressive or very timid or things like that

[1:07:55] so that we can get them in a great place

[1:07:57] before we bring them back out into this work community.

[1:08:00] How about the dogs be helped during the day?

[1:08:02] I mean, if you're not working with them directly

[1:08:03] because you're working with all 10 at once, right?

[1:08:07] No, no.

[1:08:07] And dogs can't work constantly for eight hours, right?

[1:08:11] we have to give them brakes, hydration, et cetera.

[1:08:13] So we would use candles, not like a boarding facility,

[1:08:17] like you'd have in the back of a vehicle.

[1:08:19] And we use particularly ridgeline candles

[1:08:21] in our case, which are high-impact molded,

[1:08:24] so that we're there with them, keeping them quiet.

[1:08:28] That's part of the training is noise control.

[1:08:32] But your request is specific

[1:08:33] because the issue is running into an M1.

[1:08:36] Yeah, I can go into M1, but the challenge is

[1:08:40] it's very large spaces.

[1:08:41] And so for a small business like me, now it's high cost, plus to be frank, the language

[1:08:48] in any of the leases is very predatory for a small business.

[1:08:51] I think if you're a large business, you can handle some of the risk that's there but dealing

[1:08:56] with my real estate broker, there's never been a good fit over the last nine months.

[1:09:00] So currently I've taken on a B2 as an office space, but the ideal outcome for me would be

[1:09:06] and a smaller space like a B2 for the beard picture.

[1:09:12] Now, did you say that VETs and such are allowed in B2s?

[1:09:17] Yeah, animal services defined as what VETs, groomers,

[1:09:22] or companion pet sales, a couple other things.

[1:09:27] Some maybe a solution would be to add to that list

[1:09:29] something like a non-boarding training or whatever it might be.

[1:09:33] That's what I would suggest, yeah.

[1:09:34] All right,

[1:09:39] well, I think we get what you wanted to hear, let's go ahead and complete

[1:09:44] the public comment period when you come back to this with that piece of information.

[1:09:49] Thank you.

[1:09:50] So, public hearing, I mean, the public comment period remains open if anybody else wants

[1:09:54] to come forward.

[1:09:55] Otherwise, I'll be looking at the back to see whether or not he's funded.

[1:10:04] And I'm getting a signal that no one's funded. And so we will close the public comment to get it. Now, before we move on, let's see if we want to talk a little bit about Mr. March. I mean, I guess mechanically, we're back to the thing where we need staff to recommend. You take some action to quite staff to really work on an ordinance. I think that would be the most direct way to proceed really, is that sound right?

[1:10:33] Yeah, and I would, I would, my recommendation would it allow us to explore this as we,

[1:10:39] and we have been, and know that we have been, Mr. March has been working with one of our colleagues,

[1:10:45] Mattigan Bright on this matter and she shared with us, you know, their discussions and what his hope is for.

[1:10:51] And the team of us that have been working on the zoning ordinance update, have been talking about all the animal related uses and how to make that fit in the ordinance.

[1:11:00] So I would like to continue exploring it through that means and let us continue with that the other option that you have is to direct us to work it into the current ordinance, but that will take some time as well.

[1:11:13] Yeah.

[1:11:16] Does everybody okay with that?

[1:11:18] Then we've got sort of, we've got the sense that we'd like staff to continue to work on it with an eye-to-word,

[1:11:23] bringing some sort of proposed.

[1:11:26] Ultimately, that would be you come back to us for the proposal to officially move forward.

[1:11:31] Yeah, through the list of uses in the zoning ordinance update, so in conjunction with that project.

[1:11:38] Well, preferably to me, at least in the shorter term, not waiting till phase two, you know, month or year.

[1:11:46] And again, to provide the potential applicant the opportunity to be able to move forward with the business site,

[1:11:54] is it reasonable to, and again, I don't know if this is under his purview or not, but is this something that Tyler can maybe look and see if there's other

[1:12:02] communities that might have already addressed this issue or provide us with some sort of boilerplate kind of be able to follow?

[1:12:08] I think that's Tyler's work with Mr. Russ and I, Mr. Blanks, who will work with Mr. Russ and I see there's any ordinance update project on that.

[1:12:20] This would appear to be a somewhat, you know, unique example, but I think it does relate back to the broader point of use restrictions being overly restrictive compared to what they probably ought to be.

[1:12:35] I think other examples of you seen in previous work sessions, I've been like at home by right commercial uses.

[1:12:46] And so I think that this isn't keeping the general direction that I would like to see.

[1:12:54] Yeah, it almost seems sometimes when I read these things I could be better just to say what

[1:12:57] we won't allow as opposed to listing all of these things that are permissible by right.

[1:13:01] I mean, it's sometimes it's a significant list and this is something that falls in a gray

[1:13:07] area that, you know, clearly probably should be permissible with a lot of these other types

[1:13:12] of businesses that are already currently allowable.

[1:13:15] So, you know, it's just how zoning is done but it's unfortunate that it's limiting the

[1:13:21] Children's and Pillar to be able to run his business.

[1:13:30] In front of the Related Public Commentary,

[1:13:33] not we will move on to report a secretary of committees,

[1:13:36] and we start with County Planning Liaison 14.

[1:13:40] That's me.

[1:13:42] So that was me for this month.

[1:13:46] So there were roughly four items.

[1:13:51] The first was some town homes, about 60 town homes,

[1:13:57] and as an amendment to a master plan west of wing tip way, I reckon I'm

[1:14:04] chanting county geography is not great but it was an

[1:14:08] existing an amendment to an existing master plan community relatively built out

[1:14:14] and this seems like it's likely to be the final phase. There were there were some

[1:14:19] comments in discussion on that from the public ultimately it was passed and

[1:14:26] And second was a request to rezone about a current half of median density residential

[1:14:36] to plan single family after a short discussion that was approved.

[1:14:45] And then one interesting discussion on property zone general residential to R3 to A2C which

[1:14:56] which is agricultural, generally agricultural with conditions, they're

[1:15:00] We basically had to do with the fact that it was separated considerably from the road and limited by typography. So it just wouldn't sell or be particularly useful as residential property to begin with. And so that was part of the reason for the change. And that also passed.

[1:15:18] There was a resolution of appreciation for Commissioner Michael Harvey, whose term on a planning commission come to an end.

[1:15:27] and appointments were made to the capital improvements program, which included Commissioner Keith Sheets and a citizen rep, Kevin Flint, and

[1:15:44] that's it.

[1:15:48] Thank you.

[1:15:49] Oh, I'm sorry. There was one more.

[1:15:52] I didn't really understand it, but I was there and I heard it.

[1:15:56] It was a lengthy ordinance amendment relating to Biomask Conversion Facility, a small scale

[1:16:05] as opposed to a Biomask Conversion Facility of a larger scale.

[1:16:14] There's a great little discussion about that and about how it can often be an industrial

[1:16:19] use.

[1:16:21] But in a small scale, it's often a byproduct of existing agricultural uses.

[1:16:25] and so that's basically what the ordinance amendment was hoping to distinguish.

[1:16:39] How's the member did?

[1:16:40] Okay.

[1:16:41] The two meetings since we met August 25th, very short, very long, very short agenda,

[1:16:49] very long night because it was hearing the Lindsay and we passed it by a hair pretty much.

[1:16:58] It was two to two and then the master came around to supporting it.

[1:17:02] He was basically hearing both sides and making up his mind.

[1:17:08] His primary reasoning was he had committed as far as possible not to raise taxes.

[1:17:16] And therefore we need to raise our, to increase our tax base.

[1:17:19] So we need housing.

[1:17:20] So thank you.

[1:17:22] Whew.

[1:17:23] That was a long haul and much consternation, but ultimately that's the outcome.

[1:17:32] Okay.

[1:17:33] Okay, and then we had the amendment to the subdivision ordinance that also came through

[1:17:38] planning commission.

[1:17:39] That was about changing, looking back at it, changing the director to the designated

[1:17:45] agent to cover more of city staff, right?

[1:17:49] And then some other alignment into the state code, and the other thing was about variations

[1:17:58] and exceptions, to make it clear the distinction between that and the official variance, right?

[1:18:05] Not getting that right, I'm still getting the hang of the terminology.

[1:18:11] Okay, so that was that meeting, and then last night, a lot more events and it was kind of fun.

[1:18:20] First, I'll be hearing for the CDBG Caper, I'll be able to stand for the update on the CDBG

[1:18:27] program request from Caitlin Denney for a special use permit at Monticello Avenue for

[1:18:37] short-term rental and that provoked a sort of rambling discussion on our part about what

[1:18:44] What happens when the ADU's are permitted by right?

[1:18:49] Is there some loophole by which a formally designated short-term rental, if it becomes

[1:18:56] an ADU, then become under the jurisdiction of or under the requirements that the city

[1:19:04] can add by state law, I believe, for instance, that an ADU must have a minimum lease of

[1:19:13] 30 days, meaning so it's actual logic, not just a short-term rental.

[1:19:18] And I believe the city attorney was, maybe you know, this, Mr. Rest was saying, actually

[1:19:26] if we give them a short-term rental permit now, it would stay in effect even if they

[1:19:35] say, added a stove to make it a dwelling unit, is that right?

[1:19:38] That was the kind of thing that we were wary of would currently approve short-term

[1:19:44] rentals suddenly become what could be accessory dwelling units which they're

[1:19:49] not allowed to be now, right? So we just banded around that discussion and to be

[1:19:55] determined but later much later.

[1:20:00] What else then?

[1:20:04] Here are some rich. Oh, this was the final one. And the former artisan packaging to 91 West, West Wolfstreet and West Market Street. Staff had added a much longer list of substantially similar kinds of, let's see, of use recreational uses. Let me see if I can backtrack to that this month.

[1:20:30] Council because it struck me slightly hilarious how long it got but works. Let me see.

[1:20:43] Let me find it.

[1:20:47] What would be under, I'll get the presentation because it puts it in there.

[1:21:00] Yeah, this is Adam presenting this all about the West Market Street, Wolf Street.

[1:21:05] Okay, here we go. The recreational and leisure time activity you shall be

[1:21:10] limited to recreational athletic fitness and sports related activities, including but

[1:21:15] not limited to indoor rock climbing, pickleball, gymnastics, soccer, futsal, basketball, volleyball,

[1:21:22] tennis, racquetball, dodgeball, cheerleading, martial arts, dance, bowling, trampoline

[1:21:27] parks, and substantially similar recreational uses.

[1:21:30] How about that, pretty broad, and it gives staff some leeway to determine what's substantially

[1:21:38] eventually similar or not, right, like no shooting ranges please or whatever else you might

[1:21:44] suspect would be ejectional or whatever it might be. I mean, the sort of on the line is paintball.

[1:21:51] Go carts came up and we want that to do noising or not. What?

[1:21:55] Anyway, so good work on staff's part to expand based on our feedback last time. Okay, next was

[1:22:03] is amend the conference plan to incorporate the Northeast

[1:22:08] neighborhood small area plan.

[1:22:10] A lot of good feelings about that.

[1:22:12] And yes, that's becoming the first small neighborhood

[1:22:17] small area plan that's now an addendum

[1:22:20] rate or appendix to the comp plan, OK?

[1:22:25] And then the poultry hatchery thing.

[1:22:27] That's the sort of chain reaction of amendments

[1:22:30] we've been through.

[1:22:33] Supplemental appropriation, moving around a lot of money, and I raised the question about some of it was arpefunding that has to be spent by the end of this year.

[1:22:41] So that was understood.

[1:22:42] And this was interesting, the request for the variance on North Liberty Street, the big debate about the sidewalk that we got into.

[1:22:51] As I recall, the recommendation to approve it came from planning commission at 4 to 2.

[1:23:01] And in council, it flipped the other way.

[1:23:05] Went with staff's recommendation to deny at 4 to 1.

[1:23:10] I was the one that voted to know to deny it, just not to be changing my vote from what I

[1:23:17] and you know, came to and planned a commission.

[1:23:20] But there was an understanding of the issue.

[1:23:23] It's just a matter of where do we draw the line

[1:23:25] if we don't go by the letter of the law?

[1:23:28] I have a question about that.

[1:23:30] Sure.

[1:23:31] I was disappointed to counsel with the direction.

[1:23:33] It did, obviously, because it was heavy proponent

[1:23:37] for the variance.

[1:23:39] I still believe that the ordinance is written.

[1:23:42] in the section 10 to 61 per-graph-c regarding this issue with the sidewalks that having

[1:23:53] a joining sidewalk and what have you, I would like to see that ordinance looked at simply

[1:24:01] because the discussion that we have is about the cost of those infrastructure improvements

[1:24:07] It's on a large project versus a small project.

[1:24:12] You know, I really do feel in this circumstance

[1:24:15] that this particular property is written in terms

[1:24:21] of it being necessarily potentially a,

[1:24:24] I think it's a hardship, topographical or unusual conditions.

[1:24:29] You're not going to meet that standard in this case.

[1:24:32] And I understand why our two lawyers voted in favor

[1:24:35] of denying the variance, but I think that that ordinance is a bit of a blunt instrument.

[1:24:40] I think that there needs to be some delineation between the size of the development, and

[1:24:45] where we draw that line is up for debate, but I would ask, I don't know what the process

[1:24:49] is to get that reconsidered or looked at from staff to make a recommendation, but I really

[1:24:55] feel that, you know, a small development, one or two homes being subdivided within an

[1:24:59] Infield.

[1:25:08] I feel like there should be some sort of curing or delineation between small developments of larger developments. And I don't know that I know staff, you know, very much was in support of denying the variance. But I felt like that.

[1:25:30] The ordinance has written is not nimble enough to be able to allow for anything other than

[1:25:35] what is currently written which is pretty much if you subdivide and there's a joining

[1:25:40] sidewalk you're stuck with the infrastructure.

[1:25:43] So I don't know what that process is, I don't know if that's a motion that we would have to

[1:25:47] make and it would certainly need to be a lot cleaner than what I've just presented but what

[1:25:52] is that process of looking at that?

[1:25:57] And I think that Commissioner Sites felt fairly similar to me on this when we discussed it.

[1:26:04] And I think it's merely a more discussed.

[1:26:06] I was hoping that Council had debated a little bit more on those lines than they did.

[1:26:11] I think that watching the hearing of Vice Mayor Fleming kind of nibbled around it,

[1:26:20] but really never got to the meat of that issue, but I do think that it's something that's worthy of looking at.

[1:26:27] So at this point in time, the process is that you all could request staff to look at it

[1:26:34] and evaluate it and we can come back with the recommendation.

[1:26:39] Is that possible for us to do?

[1:26:41] Do we need to submit you some sort of, you know, allow you to be able to work with it

[1:26:47] or do we need to provide you some more guidance?

[1:26:50] You can provide us with as much guidance as you would like to, we'll do the work that

[1:26:56] we usually do, which is we'll evaluate and coordinate with other city departments.

[1:27:01] It won't be, I mean, just admittedly, it won't be a quick turnaround and you're expecting

[1:27:05] something to be presented in the next month or two, so it will take some time, you know,

[1:27:10] for us to evaluate, and I don't know at this time what our recommendation will be, because

[1:27:16] I have already seen some challenges, but I'm going to try to keep an open mind and can, you know, as we explore and consider it.

[1:27:25] I understand. Council is concerned about opening Pandora's boxes that related to, you know, everybody gets a variance because of, you know, the precedent.

[1:27:34] But, you know, it just seems to me that this is, as I stated in the previous meeting, it just seems like we should be able to delineate this a little bit more.

[1:27:42] and I felt that if there was ever a point where a variance should have been allowed, it was because it was a smaller development.

[1:27:49] I just think it's worth looking at and seeing if there's value in it.

[1:27:53] And I do reject the notion that somehow we are going to complete our sidewalks along liberty by doing this piecemeal,

[1:28:04] waiting for people to subdivide and put this infrastructure in place.

[1:28:07] I feel like we're putting that developer through something in terms of costs that's not

[1:28:13] going to really produce much public good.

[1:28:17] And that was my other concern.

[1:28:18] And I understand the reasons why we ended up where we are, but I just think it's worth

[1:28:22] looking at.

[1:28:23] We can look into it, and then once we come back to you all, I'm trying to think through

[1:28:33] this because we haven't, we don't usually go through this type of process that, you know,

[1:28:37] there, I expect that there, if there is an ordinance amendment, that is to be considered,

[1:28:42] and that would be presented as we have to, to requesting you all to initiate, but let,

[1:28:47] let us kind of think about this more so that we, you know, what we're asking if, you know,

[1:28:52] if we come back and recommend that you initiate something, we know what we're kind of working.

[1:28:59] It is clear what I'm asking for, which is basically I'm just saying, let's delineate

[1:29:03] one, whether it's worth making an exemption for a certain development size.

[1:29:09] And if so, what that line, where that line would fall.

[1:29:12] And that's where I think it's going to be challenging, is figuring out what that line is and what

[1:29:16] size development, and realistically it will be calling other communities and asking what

[1:29:24] they do.

[1:29:24] And I know there are certainly some communities that for a duplex would not require sidewalks to be installed.

[1:29:32] That's with the ADU legislation. That was one of the things that the state included.

[1:29:36] You can't try and rope in infrastructure improvements like sidewalks when someone wants to convert their single family home

[1:29:41] into a single family home in an ADU. We could take that a step further and say,

[1:29:47] if it's an existing lot, it's intended for single family home and all you're doing is sub-dividing to make it a duplex and you don't have to install it.

[1:29:53] You can set the bar very low, just move it one step beyond what we currently do rather than the full evaluation.

[1:30:00] And that was something. And this is a very unique circumstance. I don't know if there's a lot of infield lots in the area that have got sidewalk on one side. But just something to consider. And again, it did not set right with me. And I just feel like it's worth creating some better public policy by potentially looking at an exemption. And speaking for myself, I mean, I voted against a variance, but I'm very interested in that policy discussion as well. I mean, as you suggested, you know,

[1:30:28] My decision on that had more to do with following the guidelines as they are currently set,

[1:30:35] but isn't necessarily opposition to re-evaluating those guidelines themselves.

[1:30:41] I think Mr. Russell, you just highlighted in terms of conversion and duplexes is a good

[1:30:46] example of that.

[1:30:48] I think that might be a good example where it might make sense to be can get some right

[1:30:55] way if there is an existing right of way, that's a different matter. But I wouldn't, you know,

[1:31:00] if someone's trying to convert a single family home to a duplex, I don't want to add additional

[1:31:05] costs like that on there. And certainly not they're subdividing and hoping to, you know, sell one

[1:31:12] part of it or increase housing stock that way as well. The only other thing that I would add is in

[1:31:20] In terms of infrastructure costs, as we're moving into the broader zoning reform process,

[1:31:25] I mentioned a moment ago, a few minutes ago, about the townhouse regulations, and I really

[1:31:32] do like those regulations, I in that it allows for an alley in the back wires, an alley in

[1:31:38] back for rear parking, and doesn't require other additional parking beyond that.

[1:31:46] so it neatly deals with the parking in relation to increased density but also increases

[1:31:55] the walkability of the space by allowing trees where otherwise would just be parking

[1:31:59] or driving driveways. But it is also increasing infrastructure costs. And so I think evaluating

[1:32:11] different ways to encourage more housing and lower and cost more broadly while

[1:32:17] still meeting the needs that we have is important. I don't think we're going to

[1:32:20] solve that anytime soon but that's it. So in this particular case it's simply just

[1:32:28] making a request or do I need to make a motion? We've never wrote it. As long as

[1:32:33] everybody's satisfied with staffs. That's fine. I'm going to be fine with that.

[1:32:40] I

[1:32:41] Let me recap and see what as far as procedures go, if you all agree and if Mr. Russ agrees with this, is that you know Plenty Commission is asking staff to explore this topic.

[1:32:52] Staff will come back at some point in the future with the recommendation whether whether it's to amend or not amend, and if it is a recommendation, if we have a recommendation to amend the ordinance, then that would be when you would make a.

[1:33:09] I'm going to read the motion to initiate and then we'll work on the amendment at that

[1:33:13] point in time.

[1:33:14] But I just feel like we need to explore this topic a little more to see what options there

[1:33:18] are and what thresholds may or may not be before I can put a semblance of what that ordinance

[1:33:25] might look like.

[1:33:27] And I appreciate you, you know, and I know it's putting more on your already full plate.

[1:33:31] And again, it's just maybe something we may look at down the road.

[1:33:35] We may not ever have a case that comes before us again like that, but I think it's a worthwhile thing to consider

[1:33:42] Thank you. I appreciate that

[1:33:46] Okay, I was doing my city report a couple more things

[1:33:51] personal property tax relief

[1:33:56] The mosaic design for the spray grounds at the pump house with the the diver

[1:34:03] I was really excited to see one thing that got moved to next time.

[1:34:11] And then several things that some of us had put on the agenda, the passenger reel.

[1:34:18] Thank you, KC, for presenting in Gabriel Mori's absence.

[1:34:22] That was from Blue Ridge Rail, that KC and I are both on the steering committee to put in

[1:34:30] a comment to the Department of Rail and Public Transit, DRPT, who provide passenger rail

[1:34:41] service to Harrisonburg. And those comments are due September 30. So in response to

[1:34:48] the presentation, City Council agreed to direct City Attorney to come up with a letter

[1:34:53] or a resolution that we'll vote on next meeting in September to send.

[1:35:00] And then time to the DRPT. So, that was a good two-step process that we had time to do. The other thing was much more kind of urgent because we don't have time for two steps.

[1:35:13] And we all, we approved the city of participation in the state corporation commission proceedings regarding the dominion energy and the next era merger. Huge thing. And HEC through VMA and

[1:35:29] and some other organization, I can remember, that gets something, purchasing power, anyway,

[1:35:38] HEC is already participating through two organizations, and we had to be clear that we're

[1:35:44] not conflicting with that, we're adding to it specifically with the community goals

[1:35:51] that Council has adopted for environmental action, specifically most importantly greenhouse

[1:35:57] gas emissions and clean energy and adjust transition and so forth.

[1:36:03] So I had to be clear that by participating we aren't stating a position pro-orcon just

[1:36:09] stating our concerns so that we can be part of the confidential hearing process and we

[1:36:16] can optionally later join coalitions with other localities whether we have the same concerns

[1:36:23] like clean energy, or different concerns that raise rich ones, concerns about their

[1:36:30] own workforce, when big chunks of the managers at Dominion would be laid off in a year

[1:36:38] and a half, for instance.

[1:36:40] So yeah, that was huge.

[1:36:42] And we did that because it was directing, again, city attorney, or giving a lot of homework

[1:36:48] to file by the deadline of September 11th.

[1:36:51] That's this Friday.

[1:36:53] So wow, yeah.

[1:36:55] And then we had brought by council member Al Sadoon.

[1:37:02] Another direction to City Attorney and City Manager,

[1:37:07] I guess, to draft an ALPR ordinance.

[1:37:11] We already passed the resolution to cancel the contract

[1:37:16] and take down the flock cameras.

[1:37:17] This is to put it in the ordinance,

[1:37:19] which the only effect that really has is that for an ordinance amendment there's a second reading which is technically just the consent agenda that we usually just pass with, you know, as is.

[1:37:37] But that way, I think that was all we could do. We couldn't add in a provision that any

[1:37:45] sending of this ordinance will take a public hearing. No, we can't do that. We can't

[1:37:50] find a future council that way. So anyway, it provided some reassurance to the people

[1:37:56] who would want to have some notice if a future council wanted to readdress this issue.

[1:38:03] So that was pretty much it for the agenda, but one other thing that I had put on the agenda

[1:38:07] that I just took off because I hadn't come up with a plan or a letter for it is the pending

[1:38:16] or potential rescinding of the roadless rule in the National Forest and a lot of the

[1:38:23] environmental and even our water system, huge concerns about that.

[1:38:28] So I just said, and I'll say again to you, y'all in the public, whoever, just go to friends

[1:38:35] of Shenandoah Mountain.org, that's the people who put together the coalition to request

[1:38:42] Congress to pass the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic and Wilderness Area. And I put

[1:38:49] in calls to our two senators and our congressmen saying, even if essentially my question was,

[1:38:57] Even if the roadless rule were rescinded, would that scenic and wilderness area provide

[1:39:05] the protections that we're seeking?

[1:39:08] And got a response from our congressional representative that said, of course, the opposite

[1:39:14] of what I would want, and that's the usual.

[1:39:17] Basically, how we need to get rid of these burdensome restrictions, no, we don't.

[1:39:22] Anyway, editorializing here of it.

[1:39:25] So, yeah, that was a thing that I just brought up in other matters as well as that I'm going

[1:39:30] to New York Climate Week in a couple of weeks and may be logging into Council remotely

[1:39:36] if I can figure out how from there, but it'll be as soon as well as, oh, yeah, I also mentioned

[1:39:44] the Sustainability Success Summit that's being held next Friday, September 18, 830-1 at

[1:39:55] Lucy Simms Center, so y'all go to that. I unfortunately can't go because I

[1:40:00] I've signed up for a class that I'm taking at the time. But I may drop in for the last, and I've just gotten an invitation to provide a recording or something. I don't know what. Okay, sure. So, yeah, that's what's going on.

[1:40:15] Thank you.

[1:40:18] Anybody have anything before we ask that? Tell us about the next one. Briefly. Two things. Why just want to echo what council member debt said was saying about reading the past of Jareil back to

[1:40:32] Harrison Byrd in addition to City Council's support as of right now there's also 680 comments

[1:40:43] in favor going to the Department of Rail and Public Transportation and you can learn

[1:40:50] more of BlueRetrile.org or just ask me or whatever.

[1:40:54] I didn't get to watch your presentation but when did we stop having passenger rail and

[1:40:58] why?

[1:40:58] I believe it was 1946, but it was in the 40s at some point, I don't remember why.

[1:41:08] The rail system here is awkwardly laid out, it's a two-piece, then it was compounded

[1:41:15] by the fact that in the 1980s major railway regulation, where abandonments went from being

[1:41:24] hard things that you need to work hard to justify to why are we bothering the nice railroads

[1:41:29] if they say they don't need this one, they don't. And we're an example of one of them that there

[1:41:34] used to be rail access to Harrisburg from the north and the abandoned some little tiny segment

[1:41:43] presumably for no reason other than shades of the type of thing commission, I also did

[1:41:49] with sort of talking about it. We don't want to just make a decision right now, we want to do

[1:41:53] something that will make it hard for people to change it ever again.

[1:41:58] And so, as an area that nonetheless has a poultry industry still needs a lot of feed,

[1:42:07] that then meant that the only way to give you directly the line runs up basically page

[1:42:15] valid.

[1:42:16] So, you've got to go to Elkton and get a train that just comes to Harrisonburg, and if

[1:42:22] It went north and came over for it because it eventually did ends.

[1:42:26] You can go south and connect to CSX and stand the whole history and actually in between

[1:42:32] is a short line.

[1:42:33] There's no value in it, which I helped for many years ago, because when the North and Southern

[1:42:39] abandoned that line, then we got a little private short line because, again, the short version

[1:42:46] this, after all, things with it was the poultry industry, but the two local groups that still

[1:42:56] made me, that Railroad is essentially about that. And at the time they said it was the only

[1:43:04] time they ever had a joint venture, but the economics were such that even though it was more expensive

[1:43:11] to bring gray in using the two railroads to do that stand.

[1:43:18] They also got it that once that option went away,

[1:43:22] and there were totally captive shippers on Norfolk's side,

[1:43:25] then guess what was going to happen to the race,

[1:43:28] so there were a whole lot of machinations,

[1:43:30] but then it gets to the piece of, because you can't,

[1:43:34] because the way the lines are set up,

[1:43:37] it's challenging to figure out how to get

[1:43:39] in and out of Harrisonburg with other places because the line's kind of

[1:43:44] if you stand and they go through Elton. We're we're we were kind of you

[1:43:51] really are. We're sort of the we're sort of the end of the line really from the

[1:43:55] way that from the Southern Southern standpoint which is who serves

[1:43:59] Harrisonburg we're the end of the earth you know we they come to Harrisonburg

[1:44:03] and then they basically stop. And in terms of the in terms of the very basics

[1:44:11] But basically the reason why this is happening right now is the, you know, they need

[1:44:16] comments by September 30th, and that's as part of their four-year plan.

[1:44:20] So we can do it now, or we can do it four years from now, so that was generally better.

[1:44:27] And the approach right now is about neutral, which basically means south-western east through

[1:44:36] and part of the rationale for that is, you know, if you, if you ask for a particular route,

[1:44:41] a particular kind of service they can just say no.

[1:44:45] And you ask for a study to evaluate options and so forth.

[1:44:49] And they would, they may have to do a study.

[1:44:51] And that's the first step to actually getting the thing done.

[1:44:55] They being the general assembly, right, directing the RPT to do a study.

[1:45:00] I have the words next. Gabriel is really the best person to ask about that, but in general, yes, that is my understanding. Thank goodness for him. He's a, he is raised in Harrisonburg, and he is a project manager at DC Metro. And so, this will not be happening for him. Yeah, and it's a long-term vision anyway. It may happen five, 10, 20 years from now or not, but it won't happen if we don't ask for it. Exactly.

[1:45:30] But you have presumably, I mean, stands on Amtrak, so that would be, but then that's where

[1:45:36] you've got Chino Valley Railroad in there. So you've got a new, we've got a short line

[1:45:39] between North and Southern and CSI connections.

[1:45:42] And the state's been making a lot of investments in right-of-way, which really improves travel

[1:45:46] time. And yeah, the only other thing that I wanted to mention is I would like, and not

[1:45:54] certainly today. Some kind of update on what's going on with housing fund. That's it. Maybe

[1:46:04] next month or. We'll talk to again our housing coordinator to see is a good time for some

[1:46:11] discussion. I know that that's been on her mind, but I think I just don't know about the

[1:46:17] timings I'll ask. Yeah, I don't remember exactly where it is, but I believe there's a study

[1:46:22] in the office and then the consultants. That was my understanding.

[1:46:26] There was time. There was other consultants.

[1:46:29] And that's what we would need to know. What are the

[1:46:34] the legalities, the constraints, the financing,

[1:46:36] the this, that it's not just well-out-proof housing,

[1:46:42] which would be nice over these past few years

[1:46:45] if we could have done but we're working on it slowly but surely.

[1:46:48] It's

[1:46:51] the gist of it.

[1:46:55] Other problems?

[1:46:58] Well, there's nothing else.

[1:47:00] Staff, tell us about next month, the meeting.

[1:47:02] We still have.

[1:47:02] Great.

[1:47:03] Yeah, next month.

[1:47:05] I messed this up with the point.

[1:47:07] Let me help you with the.

[1:47:09] Thank you very much.

[1:47:10] We've got two items anticipated on the agenda.

[1:47:14] One is subdivision ordinance variations and deviations related

[1:47:18] to the Lindsay project.

[1:47:20] And then what you didn't see at this meeting

[1:47:23] Is the shopping center parking ordinance because we went through staff review we had some more things we wanted to work through

[1:47:30] So we hope to bring it to you in October

[1:47:32] You know, we've got yet another word deviations opposed to

[1:47:36] Variations have exceptions

[1:47:38] Oh, did I think I

[1:47:43] An exceptions could catch should say variations and exceptions not

[1:47:48] Lays a shallow overdone.

[1:47:51] Alright, anything else?

[1:47:53] We're

[1:47:56] adjourned.

Planning Commission on 2026-09-09 6:00 PM

Transcript