City Hall  
City of Harrisonburg  
409 South Main Street  
Harrisonburg, VA 22801  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Planning Commission  
Wednesday, April 8, 2026  
6:00 PM  
Council Chambers  
1.  
Call To Order  
The Harrisonburg Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Wednesday April 8, 2026, at  
6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 409 South Main Street.  
5 -  
Present  
Absent  
Richard Baugh, City Council Representative Laura Dent, Shannon Porter , Kenneth  
Kettler , and Randall Seitz  
2 - Heja Alsindi, and Stanley Jezior  
2.  
Roll Call/Determination of Quorum  
Members present: Richard Baugh, Chair; Shannon Porter, Vice Chair; Councilmember Laura  
Dent; KC Kettler; and Randy Seitz. Rob Jezior and Heja Alsindi were absent. Also present:  
Adam Fletcher, Director of Community Development; Thanh Dang, Deputy Director of  
Community Development; Nyrma Soffel, Planner; Meg Rupkey, Planner; Wesley Russ, Deputy  
City Attorney; and Anastasia Montigney, Development Support Specialist/Secretary.  
3.  
Approval of Minutes  
Minutes from the March 11, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting  
3.a.  
Chair Baugh asked if there were any corrections, comments or a motion regarding the March 11,  
2026, Planning Commission meeting minutes.  
Ms. Dang said if you recall from our March 11 meeting there was a resident who called and the  
phone call was difficult to understand. Following the meeting Robert and Mary Sease of 286 Paul  
Street contacted staff stating that they were callers and are opposed to the rezoning request. Their  
email has been accepted into the record as a written public comment that has been received. I  
have provided you all with a draft statement that we would like to include in the minutes.  
Commissioner Kettler said motion to approve minutes with the amendment presented by staff.  
Vice Chair Porter seconded the motion.  
The motion to approve the March 11, 2026, Planning Commission meeting minutes with the  
amendment passed by voice vote (5-0).  
A
motion was made by Kettler, seconded by Porter, that this Minutes be approved. The  
motion carried by a voice vote.  
4.  
New Business - Public Hearings  
4.a.  
Consider a request from Mick or Mack LC for a special use permit at 140 East Wolfe  
Street  
Chair Baugh read the request and asked staff to review.  
Ms. Soffel said the applicant is requesting a special use permit (SUP) per Section 10-3-85(1) to  
allow manufacturing, processing, and assembly operations, provided the use does not employ  
more than fifteen (15) persons on the premises in a single shift and that all storage and activities  
are conducted within a building in the B-1, Central Business District. The +/- 16,600-square-foot  
property is addressed as 140 East Wolfe Street and is identified as tax map parcel 34-N-7.  
On August 8, 2025, the applicant submitted a building alteration permit request for interior  
modifications and a change of use from retail (formally Gamer Oasis) to a tavern and arcade at  
140 East Wolfe Street. The applicant describes in their letter that “[t]he primary use of the  
premises will be a tavern and arcade-style entertaining venue offering food and beverage service  
along with recreational activities such as classic arcade games and community events.” The  
applicant plans to serve beer produced from their brewery location at 120 West Wolfe Street  
(Restless Moons Brewing) at this site. If the SUP request is approved, the applicant plans to  
operate a canning line to package beer produced at 120 West Wolfe Street. Beer brewed at 120  
West Wolfe Street would be kegged, and then the kegged beer brought to 140 East Wolfe Street  
to be canned and packaged. Some of the canned beer would be served and sold on-site, and  
some would be returned to 120 West Wolfe Street for sale at that location. The canning and  
packaging line would operate in the rear portion of the building, as shown on their concept plan.  
Land Use  
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use and states:  
The Mixed Use category includes both existing and proposed areas for mixed  
use. Mixed Use areas shown on the Land Use Guide map are intended to  
combine residential and non-residential uses in neighborhoods, where the different  
uses are finely mixed instead of separated. Mixed Use can take the form of a  
single building, a single parcel, a city block, or entire neighborhoods. Quality  
architectural design features and strategic placement of green spaces for large  
scale developments will ensure development compatibility of a mixed use  
neighborhood with the surrounding area. These areas are prime candidates for  
“live-work” and traditional neighborhood developments (TND). Live-work  
developments combine residential and commercial uses allowing people to both  
live and work in the same area. The scale and massing of buildings is an important  
consideration when developing in Mixed Use areas. Commercial uses would be  
expected to have an intensity equivalent to a Floor Area Ratio of at least 0.4,  
although the City does not measure commercial intensity in that way. Downtown  
is an existing area that exhibits and is planned to continue to contain a mix of land  
uses.  
The downtown Mixed Use area often has no maximum residential density,  
however, development should take into consideration the services and resources  
that are available (such as off-street parking) and plan accordingly. Residential  
density in Mixed Use areas outside of downtown should be around 24 dwelling  
units per acre, and all types of residential units are permitted: single-family  
detached, single-family attached (duplexes and townhomes), and multi-family  
buildings. Large scale developments, which include multi-family buildings are  
encouraged to include single-family detached and/or attached dwellings.  
The subject site is surrounded by a variety of established commercial, institutional, and residential  
uses, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Mixed Use designation.  
The applicant does not intend for the canning and packaging operations to be a large-scale  
industrial operation, and the special use permit limits the use to no more than 15 persons per shift.  
However, if the SUP is approved, the scale of operations could change over time or the property  
could be sold and other manufacturing, processing, and assembly operations could operate at this  
location. This could result in a more intensive industrial use and may increase truck traffic in the  
area that was not evaluated with this request. If the SUP is approved, staff recommends the  
following condition:  
1. The canning, bottling, and packaging operations shall be limited to the “canning line” area  
as depicted on the concept plan.  
While the applicant has explained that they do not plan to bottle beer at this location, staff  
suggests the SUP conditions allow both canning and bottling.  
Transportation and Traffic  
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was not required for the SUP request.  
Public Water and Sanitary Sewer  
Staff has no concerns with the requested SUP regarding water and sewer matters.  
Conclusion  
The special use permit request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Mixed Use  
designation and, with the recommended conditions, is not expected to have adverse effects on  
adjacent properties.  
Staff recommends approval of the SUP with the following condition:  
1. The canning, bottling, and packaging operations shall be limited to the “canning line” area  
as depicted on the concept plan.  
Ms. Soffel asked if there were any questions for staff.  
Commissioner Seitz said this probably is not our purview but how does this work with the ABC  
licenses? Does the ABC license that they have for the original Wolfe Street location extend to  
this? Is it a new license for the tavern?  
Ms. Soffel said that would be a good question for the applicant.  
Chair Baugh asked if there were any more questions for staff. Hearing none, he invited the  
applicant or applicant’s representative to speak to their request.  
Jeffery Moon, the applicant and business owner of Restless Moon Brewery, came forward to  
speak to the request. He said I am perfectly fine with that condition. To answer your question [to  
Commission Seitz], we would technically be considered a brewery in the eyes of the ABC. One  
of the reasons we have the canning line is to meet the requirements of the ABC. Twenty percent  
of what we sell on site has to be manufactured on site. By putting a canning line there, we meet  
that requirement, and it helps some of our other business goals.  
Councilmember Dent said I am curious about the “Install sign: No dancing is permitted in this  
building”?  
Mr. Moon said we would prefer not to have to install a fire suppression system just because we  
do not own the building. It is going to be six figures to do that. In order to meet the requirements,  
we need to not be classified as a nightclub, which is not the intent. In order to avoid the  
appearance of being a nightclub, we need to have something that would prohibit dancing,  
effectively. The other alternative would be to never host live music. We would like to be able to  
host live music, and so in terms of meeting some other concerns from the City, we are just going  
to post a sign that says you are not allowed to dance there. I am doing what I am being asked to.  
Vice Chair Porter said I had one question just because the fact that the back of the building with  
deliveries coming to and from the City, what kind of truck traffic would this generate in terms of  
how often you feel like you are going to be transporting and bringing stuff back and forth? What  
kind of traffic impact might that have in the back of the building?  
Mr. Moon said realistically in terms of beer coming in and out, it is really going to be me and my  
Toyota Tundra. Depending on how much we are producing, if I max out my capacity at my  
current facility, I might need to make four trips a week in my truck back and forth. That would be  
the maximum that we would need to. We are going to have a retail operation on site, so we are  
going to have some trucks coming in to deliver cards, board games, and things of that nature. I do  
not know exactly how many that would be, but the retail portion is going to be pretty minimal  
compared to the rest of the operation. I imagine that is one or two trucks a week, something like  
that.  
Vice Chair Porter said no big forty-footers coming in none of that kind of stuff.  
Mr. Moon said no.  
Chair Baugh asked if there were any more questions for the applicant. Hearing none, he opened  
the public hearing and invited anyone in the room or on the phone wishing to speak to the request.  
Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and opened the matter for discussion.  
Councilmember Dent said might the Friendly City Food Co-Op at some point want this space?  
From my connections with it, not any time soon. If and when that might happen, they might have a  
negotiation, but they do not have any plans to expand at this point.  
Vice Chair Porter said I would only state that I am grateful to see a great local business expanding  
and prospering. I think that it is wonderful that we are going to have something like this in this  
particular space. I think it would be a good addition to that area.  
Commissioner Kettler said as someone who frequented Gamer Oasis and walks by Restless  
Moons every day, I agree with the assessment.  
Councilmember Dent asked I also wondered about, what he said was they do not want to have to  
put in fire suppression and what the threshold might be for that if it is a club?  
Mr. Fletcher said it has to do with the Fire Code and the Building Code and what is considered a  
dancehall and how an assembly space has to be protected. I actually did not pay particular  
attention to that specific detail that was on the plan, but I am not surprised because our folks are  
quite detail oriented. They want to make sure that this is not going to be classified as that space  
because it would kick in many other criteria as I presume Mr. Seitz could probably attest to.  
Commissioner Seitz said unlike my colleagues at LDDBlueline, I do not have the building code  
memorized, but it all has to do with how you classify the space and density thereof. A nightclub is  
a more dense classification, and it would put it over a threshold of the number of people for which  
you would have to have fire suppression.  
Councilmember Dent said that is not required for the tables, seating and the arcade, I guess?  
Commissioner Seitz said I assume that Mr. Moon has hired people who, in combination with the  
City, have made sure that all of those Ts are crossed.  
Mr. Fletcher said I was going to answer the question very similarly that this would go through our  
typical review, and our plans reviewers would speak to those issues.  
Vice Chair Porter said I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of the special use  
permit with the suggested condition by staff.  
Commissioner Kettler seconded the motion.  
Chair Baugh called for a roll call vote.  
Commissioner Seitz  
Councilmember Dent  
Commissioner Kettler  
Vice Chair Porter  
Chair Baugh  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
The motion to recommend approval of the special use permit with suggested conditions passed  
(5-0). The recommendation will move forward to City Council on May 12, 2026.  
A
motion was made by Porter, seconded by Kettler, that this PH-Special Use Permit be  
recommended for approval to the City Council, due back on 5/12/2026.  
with a recorded roll call vote taken as follows:  
The motion carried  
5 - Baugh, City Council Representative Dent, Porter, Kettler and Seitz  
Yes:  
No:  
0
2 - Alsindi and Jezior  
Absent:  
4.b.  
Consider a request from Big Brother and Holdings CO LLC for a special use permit  
at 165 South Main Street  
Chair Baugh read the request and asked staff to review.  
Ms. Soffel said the applicant is requesting a special use permit (SUP) per Zoning Ordinance (ZO)  
Section 10-3-85 (11) to allow a short-term rental (STR) in the B-1, Central Business district. The  
+/- 12,047-square-foot property is addressed as 165 South Main Street and is identified as tax  
map parcel 26-B-2. The subject property is known as the Wine Bros. building, a mixed-use  
structure that includes The Shops at Agora, Ruby’s Arcade, and four multi-family dwelling units,  
which are known as Ruby’s Lofts. If approved, the applicant would operate a short-term rental  
(STR) within Apartment 203.  
In February 2026, the Commissioner of the Revenue’s office discovered that the applicant was  
operating a STR without a City business license. The applicant indicates the STR has operated in  
Apartment 203 for approximately five years. In addition to obtaining an SUP and business license,  
STRs must be registered annually with the Department of Community Development.  
The City adopted STR regulations in March 2019. These regulations were amended in  
September 2020 to create the by right “homestay” use. Homestays are only permitted within  
single-family detached, duplex, and townhome dwellings; therefore, the proposed STR within  
Ruby’s Lofts is not eligible to operate as a by right homestay and requires SUP approval. While  
the applicant has described how the STR would operate, the SUP is not restricted to the current  
applicant/operator. SUPs run with the land; therefore, any future owner/operator could utilize the  
SUP provided all ordinance requirements and any SUP conditions are met.  
Per ZO Section 10-3-205 (2), STR operators must maintain the property as their primary  
residence, as indicated on a state-issued license or identification card. The property owner does  
not live on the property and has identified Tess Sherman (tenant in Apartment 202) as the  
operator. The proposed operator resides on the property and therefore meets the primary  
residence requirement. Staff has advised the applicant that if the operator is not the property  
owner, ZO Section 10-3-205 (3) requires the operator to be present during the lodging period. If  
the existing operator were to move or is no longer willing to act as the operator, the STR would  
not be able to operate until a new operator who resides on the property is identified.  
The B-1 district has no minimum off-street parking requirements; however, the applicant indicates  
that five parking spaces are leased from the adjacent Asbury United Methodist Church for Ruby’s  
Lofts tenants and STR guests. In addition, the site is within walking distance of the Water Street  
parking deck, where public parking is available.  
Land Use  
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use and states:  
The Mixed Use category includes both existing and proposed areas for mixed  
use. Mixed Use areas shown on the Land Use Guide map are intended to  
combine residential and non-residential uses in neighborhoods, where the different  
uses are finely mixed instead of separated. Mixed Use can take the form of a  
single building, a single parcel, a city block, or entire neighborhoods. Quality  
architectural design features and strategic placement of green spaces for large  
scale developments will ensure development compatibility of a mixed use  
neighborhood with the surrounding area. These areas are prime candidates for  
“live-work” and traditional neighborhood developments (TND). Live-work  
developments combine residential and commercial uses allowing people to both  
live and work in the same area. The scale and massing of buildings is an important  
consideration when developing in Mixed Use areas. Commercial uses would be  
expected to have an intensity equivalent to a Floor Area Ratio of at least 0.4,  
although the City does not measure commercial intensity in that way. Downtown  
is an existing area that exhibits and is planned to continue to contain a mix of land  
uses.  
The downtown Mixed Use area often has no maximum residential density,  
however, development should take into consideration the services and resources  
that are available (such as off-street parking) and plan accordingly. Residential  
density in Mixed Use areas outside of downtown should be around 24 dwelling  
units per acre, and all types of residential units are permitted: single-family  
detached, single-family attached (duplexes and townhomes), and multi-family  
buildings. Large scale developments, which include multi-family buildings are  
encouraged to include single-family detached and/or attached dwellings.  
The subject site is a mixed-use building containing commercial and residential uses, consistent with  
the Comprehensive Plan’s Mixed Use designation.  
Transportation and Traffic  
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was not required for the SUP request.  
Public Water and Sanitary Sewer  
Staff has no concerns with the requested SUP regarding water and sewer matters.  
Housing Study  
The City’s Comprehensive Housing Assessment and Market Study (Housing Study) has this  
property in a Census block group that is classified as “No Data” according to market types. This  
block group did not have any housing sales data at the time of the study. The Housing Study  
identified that there is strong demand for expanding rental housing inventory at the lowest and  
highest income spectrum because the number of households in the lowest and highest income  
groups significantly exceed the number of housing units available for and affordable to them.  
Public Schools  
If the SUP is approved, no additional dwelling units would be added to the property; therefore,  
the student generation is zero.  
Conclusion  
After review of this request, staff believes it shares similar characteristics to other applications for  
STRs that have received approval. Staff recommends approval of the SUP with the following  
conditions:  
1. All STR accommodations shall be within Apartment 203 as described in the application.  
2. There shall be no more than one (1) STR guest room or accommodation space.  
3. The number of STR guests at one time shall be limited to four (4).  
4. Prior to operation, the operator shall submit to City staff a completed Short-Term Rental  
Pre-Operation Form. Furthermore, the operator shall maintain compliance with the items  
identified in the Pre-Operation Form when short-term rental guests are present.  
If in the opinion of Planning Commission or City Council, the short-term rental becomes a  
nuisance, the special use permit can be recalled for further review, which could lead to the need  
for additional conditions, restrictions, or the revocation of the permit.  
Ms. Soffel asked if there were any questions for staff.  
Chair Baugh invited the applicant or applicant’s representative to speak to their request.  
Margaret Clark, the applicant and property owner, came forward to speak to the request. She  
said I really do not know what to say other than I would really appreciate your consideration and  
being able to do this as the income is vital to maintaining that building. The lease will be paid off in  
about seven years, and it has been vital to helping me make ends meet at that building. I take care  
of it myself. I am there every day.  
Councilmember Dent asked this may be more for staff on the map that I see, I see suite 201 and  
204, is 203 understood to be in there somewhere?  
Mr. Fletcher said it is probably just not being captured with the zoom in of the GIS.  
Councilmember Dent asked is it in the back of the building?  
Ms. Clark said it is the upper level in the back of the building above Ruby’s Arcade. The entrance  
to the lofts is right by the back entrance to Ruby’s Arcade. Walking into this, you go upstairs and  
there are four apartments, 201, 202, 203 and 204. 203 was my husband and my personal  
apartment, and he used it as his office. He passed away in 2019, right before Covid. I just had to  
be creative. It is fully furnished and beautiful. It was a difficult thing to rent out.  
Councilmember Dent said I was just saying this is exactly the kind of place I would be looking to  
stay.  
Ms. Clark said there are lovely couples that come there from alumni to parents of JMU students  
who come to those events. Tourists passing through, or on road trips, and they will stay for a night  
or two. I have lots of returned guests and they are very complimentary.  
Vice Chair Porter said I just want to confirm you will be the onsite operator?  
Ms. Clark said I am the owner of that building. Tess Sherman has lived there since the beginning,  
so for ten years. She is in her 30s, and she would act as my operator, and she lives there.  
Vice Chair Porter said I also wanted to express my disappointment in the fact that you have  
already taken Big Brother and the Holdings Company LLC out of the mix. I will never be able to  
secure that ever. That is one of the best LLCs I have ever heard in my entire life.  
Ms. Clark said that is thanks to my husband.  
Mr. Fletcher said just for the record, you are Ms. Clark?  
Ms. Clark confirmed. She also said I also have Clementine and Ruby’s Arcade down below, and  
I rent out the space for Agora out front. I am the manager of that building, I take care of that.  
Chair Baugh asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Hearing none, Chair Baugh  
opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the room or on the phone wishing to speak to the  
request.  
Luke Smith, a resident of 298 Campbell Street, came forward to speak to the request. He said it  
was so awkwardly quiet in here that I thought I would just voice support for Ms. Clark’s  
application. Seems like a great idea. I hope you all vote in favor. Thank you.  
Vice Chair Porter said, for me, every time these issues come up, I think consistency is the primary  
issue. It is very clear that this property is operating consistent with other short-term rentals in the  
area, and I think it is important that we maintain a standard. I think that if this meets that standard,  
I am comfortable with the conditions that have been set forth by the staff.  
Commissioner Kettler said I move to recommend approval of the special use permit request with  
the suggested conditions.  
Councilmember Dent seconded the motion.  
Chair Baugh called for a roll call vote.  
Commissioner Seitz  
Councilmember Dent  
Commissioner Kettler  
Vice Chair Porter  
Chair Baugh  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
The motion to recommend approval of the special use permit request with the suggested  
conditions passed (5-0). The recommendation will move forward to City Council on May 12,  
2026.  
A
motion was made by Kettler, seconded by City Council Representative Dent, that this  
PH-Special Use Permit be recommended for approval to the City Council, due back on  
5/12/2026. The motion carried with a recorded roll call vote taken as follows:  
5 - Baugh, City Council Representative Dent, Porter, Kettler and Seitz  
Yes:  
0
No:  
2 - Alsindi and Jezior  
Absent:  
4.c.  
Consider a request from Collicello North LLC to amend the approved master  
development plan (rezoning) for various addresses on Collicello Street and Kates  
Lane.  
Chair Baugh read the request and asked staff to review.  
Ms. Rupkey said Collicello North LLC is requesting to amend the 2013 approved master  
development plan for a development known as Collicello North. The +/- 2.96-acre site is zoned  
R-7, Medium Density Mixed Residential Planned Community District, is addressed as 919, 925,  
955, 959, 963, 967, 975, 983, 991, & 922 Collicello Street and 172, 176, 180, 184, 188, 192,  
& 196 Kates Lane and are designated as tax map parcels  
40-I-16.  
40-H-1, 11, 17 through 30 &  
This site was rezoned to R-7 in July 2013. The R-7 district is not a conventional zoning district as  
it requires a master plan. A document titled What is an R-7 Development? Information Sheet is  
attached herein for a reminder as to how R-7 zoning is implemented. If an approved Master Plan  
is to be modified, a rezoning to amend the Master Plan is required. A copy of the 2013 staff  
report and 2013 Collicello North Master Plan are attached.  
Following the approval of the Collicello North Master Plan, the property owner received  
approval for variances to the Subdivision Ordinance (SO) Section 10-2-41(a) for right-of-way  
(ROW) width requirements, dedication of the sidewalk in the public ROW, the centerline radius  
and curves, curb radii, street K value, and intersection design. Additionally, a variance to SO  
Section 10-2-42(c) to provide lots without public street frontage was approved. Along with the  
SO variance requests, the property owner received approval of a preliminary plat that showed  
how the site would be subdivided. The Final Plat for Phase 1 was approved and recorded in early  
2015. That plat included the dedication to public use of the extension of Collicello Street from 5th  
Street to Virginia Avenue. It also included the division of a portion of the overall property into  
Lots 1-14, Lot 35, and a Common Area parcel. An engineered comprehensive site plan (ECSP)  
was approved in 2014 and updated in 2015.  
Following the approval of the ECSP, construction of infrastructure to serve a portion of the  
development began. At this time, some components of the infrastructure have been completed,  
while others have not. The public water and sewer lines to serve Phase 1 of the development have  
been completed and have been accepted by the City. Work to construct Collicello Street has not  
been completed. While not an exhaustive list, the street still lacks areas of sidewalk, curbing,  
handicap ramping, final surface paving, and final storm drainage work. Though the street  
right-of-way was dedicated to public use, the City does not assume responsibility for the street  
until it is complete and then the street is accepted for public maintenance.  
Master Plan Amendments  
The applicant is now requesting amendments to the approved Master Plan to allow greater  
flexibility in the final design and implementation of the development. Specifically, the request  
includes modifications to language related to solar requirements, final building designs, project  
phasing, the Property Owners’ Association declaration, and transit facilities. The applicant has  
also removed references to previously identified aspirational elements and instead included those  
items in a new separate document to distinguish between required and optional features.  
The 2013 Master Plan was approved for a mix of single-family detached dwellings, townhomes,  
and one duplex unit. The original Master Plan identified specific building design types. In the  
updated Master Plan, the applicant is requesting to remove the design types for the dwellings to  
provide flexibility in the overall construction of the dwelling units.  
The original Master Plan required that all dwelling units be constructed with solar panels on each  
dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting to remove the requirement for solar panel installation and  
would instead construct all the dwelling units to be solar ready. At the time of construction, home  
buyers would have the option to have solar panels installed on the units. If a home buyer does not  
want to install solar panels at the time of purchase, the units would be solar ready if a future owner  
wanted to install panels.  
Additionally, the 2013 Master Plan included a goal of providing a transit stop near the intersection  
of Collicello Street and 5th Street. At that time, the Department of Public Transportation indicated  
that such a stop would likely not be supported due to the proximity of an existing stop near 3rd  
and Collicello Streets. This assessment remains unchanged, and the applicant has removed this  
element from the Master Plan.  
The applicant has also amended the Master Plan to remove the proposed phasing of the project  
to allow for flexibility of the construction process. Additionally, the Property Owners’ Association  
declaration has been removed from the Master Plan to allow for future modifications by the  
community, should updates be necessary after project completion. The applicant has also  
removed Regulation #6 from the Master Plan section Zoning Regulations for Collicello North.  
Staff supports this removal, as Regulation #5, Table A, and the overall layout provide sufficient  
guidance for development.  
After the Planning Commission agenda was published on April 3, 2026 and prior to tonight’s  
public hearing, the applicant updated “Table B - Landscaping” within the Master Plan. The  
approved 2013 Master Plan included a table listing tree types and sizes that may be located within  
the development. At that time, the Master Plan stated that a more formal landscaping plan would  
be provided once development plans were finalized. The new proposed language states that a  
minimum of two large deciduous trees and six smaller deciduous trees will be planted within the  
development on real property owned or maintained by the Property Owners Association and  
would be maintained by the Association after the time of planting. The exact locations of these  
trees are not specified, but they would be planted within the areas shown in brown on the  
Landscaping Plan on page 5 of the updated Master Plan.  
Land Use  
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Neighborhood Residential and states:  
These areas are typically older residential neighborhoods, which contain a mixture  
of densities and a mixture of housing types, but should have more single-family  
detached homes than other types of housing. This type of land use highlights those  
neighborhoods in which existing conditions dictate the need for careful  
consideration of the types and densities of future residential development. Infill  
development and redevelopment must be designed so as to be compatible with  
the desired character of the neighborhood.  
Transportation and Traffic  
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was not required for the rezoning request.  
Public Water and Sanitary Sewer  
Staff has no concerns with the requested rezoning regarding water and sanitary sewer matters.  
Housing Study  
The City’s Comprehensive Housing Assessment and Market Study (Housing Study) places the  
subject site within Market Type A. Among other things, this Market Type is characterized by high  
population growth. The study notes that Market Type A has “above median overall access to  
amenities such as public transit within walking distance, full-service grocery stores, and multiple  
parks and recreation facilities.” The study also notes that “policies that are appropriate to Market  
type A areas include an emphasis on increasing density through zoning changes, infill development  
and housing rehabilitation to maintain the quality of housing.”  
Public Schools  
The proposed rezoning and planned subdivision do not change the existing buildable potential of  
the subject property and thus does not impact the calculated student generation.  
Conclusion  
Staff believes that the amendments to the Master Plan do not change the overall intent of the  
approved Master Plan and would allow for flexibility for the final development. Staff recommends  
approval of the Master Plan amendments.  
Ms. Rupkey asked if there were any questions for staff.  
Councilmember Dent said I think I saw in here somewhere “no clothes lines,”? I think that was in  
appendix C. Maybe that is an example of the sort of thing that was overly restrictive.  
Ms. Rupkey said that was part of their property owner’s association documents that are no longer  
included. They will have to provide property owner association documents, but they can be  
amended if they want to.  
Chair Baugh asked if there were any more questions for staff. Hearing none, he invited the  
applicant or applicant’s representative to speak to their request.  
Jordan Bowman, Little & Sipe LLP, the applicant’s representative, came forward to speak to the  
request. He said I want to begin by thanking all of you for being here this evening and compliment  
your staff. They have been great to work with and have helped guide us through this process and  
have been extremely professional. I have with me members of our development team Jason  
Propst, Mattias Clymer, and also representatives of the owner because we are the contract  
purchaser of this property, Todd Rhea and Manny Fisher. If I cannot answer any of your  
questions, I am sure one of them can. This plan was approved in 2013 by City Council, and we  
believe it is a solid core vision. We do not want to change the core vision of what is happening on  
this site. It is a neighborhood that is a mixture of home types that are moderate in size with a  
community feel and environmentally friendly aspects. We want to keep that core vision intact and  
we want to be the ones to realize it. This land has been sitting there for twelve years since it has  
been approved, and it has not been built out. One of the reasons why is that there are some  
economic barriers to doing so. There are also some barriers in that the original Master Plan is very  
detailed inasmuch as it included specific home types and how they would look and exactly how  
the covenants are going to be. We are here before you asking for a little bit of flexibility. We are  
asking for some of the requirements, such as the building layouts and some of the environmental  
requirements, to be relaxed so that we can keep the core vision but we can make it economically  
viable for us to develop this and bring homes to citizens at a price that they can afford to buy  
them. I am happy answer more specific questions about that. We would appreciate your  
consideration. Do you have any questions for me?  
Councilmember Dent said I was just slightly disappointed at the letting go of the net zero intention.  
I understand that solar installation could be an option on purchase rather than have it built up  
front?  
Mr. Bowman said that is correct. I understand the disappointment in that regard. It is not a secret  
from anyone who is looking at what we proposing that we are relaxing some of the environmental  
requirements. We believe that part of the vision is that this is an environmentally friendly  
neighborhood. We are keeping some elements of that, so the buildings are oriented in a way that  
they are facing south. They are of a moderate size. They are not oversized. We are keeping those  
elements. We are pre-wiring them, and we are going to make them ready for solar panels to be  
installed and our intention is to have an installer that is available so that at the time the buildings are  
built if someone comes forward as a customer wanting to buy one that we can give them an option  
to have that at the time of purchase. It is not a requirement. If it is someone who wants to buy one  
of the homes, but is not able to afford the solar, we still would be able to sell it to them.  
Councilmember Dent said related to that, is it being built to any energy efficiency standards?  
Mr. Bowman said we have not included above and beyond the building code, which has been  
more and more specific in regard to energy efficiency. We have not included in the Master Plan  
additional energy efficiency measures. Part of that is the economics of it. Also, it is just a  
labor-intensive process to come back through the rezoning and not knowing necessarily how  
quickly it is going to be built out and what materials are going to be available to us. It is not a  
proffer because it is a Master Plan, but we have not included in the Master Plan specific materials.  
Councilmember Dent said I remember when we were building the new Public Works building  
owned by the City, we opted out of LEED certification because there is a cost to it and an  
ongoing recertification. However, the Virginia Energy Efficiency Standards (VEES) is what we  
opted to go with instead because it is essentially the same kind of criteria just for free. That is what  
I am familiar with it. There is a publicly available set of guidelines for efficiency.  
Vice Chair Porter said I would also encourage you to look at some EarthCraft building. There are  
some fairly economical changes that can be made in your building process that can make these  
more energy efficient and also better in terms of environmental standards without substantial cost  
change.  
Councilmember Dent said speaking of cost, I recommended the consideration of manufactured  
homes because there is new legislation working its way through Congress that allows  
manufactured homes to be built without a chassis, which means they do not have to be trailers and  
you cannot tell. They say that it can save up to thirty percent of the costs. They would be, by  
definition I am pretty sure, energy efficient. That is just something to consider as you are working  
on a development, especially for smaller, economical houses like this.  
Mr. Bowman said our intention is make these energy efficient and to make them solar ready and  
in addition to the materials, to have them oriented in a way that they are efficient and sized in a  
way that they are efficient. We have not included particular sets of standards in the Master Plan. I  
am familiar with manufactured homes. I have worked on the Bluestone Town Center project, but  
the core of the vision for this project I think was that they were going to be standard single-family  
homes. We are trying to make the fewest possible changes that we can, to make this a vision that  
we are able to realize.  
Councilmember Dent said a different subject, I went out poking around the site today. There is a  
definite elevation change. I think it is the hill that kind of goes back behind some of the single  
\-family houses around the bend of Collicello [Street], and then it is townhomes below that.  
Mr. Bowman said that is correct. [Referring to an image on the screen showing the master plan  
layout.] Are you talking about the bend at the upper portion of that?  
Councilmember Dent said the upper part is way down the hill and it seems like the downhill is  
kind of right behind or even under the upper row of houses within the red, right?  
Mr. Bowman said yes ma’am, I think that is correct.  
Councilmember Dent said I think I remember these guys saying that there will be something like a  
multistory. Like the first floor there would be a garage under it. You will work with the  
topography, I guess.  
Mr. Bowman said I think that is correct and Mr. Propst would be better than I at answering  
specific questions about the building design. If you want to ask those, I would be happy to invite  
him forward.  
Jason Propst, a member of the development team for Collicello North, came forward to speak to  
the request. He said I think you are referring to the cliff on the backside. The original design that is  
in the current Master Plan was a house that has a garage and goes up and expands off. The  
greenspace that is in the middle is part of a community space that we are trying to keep as part of  
the community feel. We have designed a house that is three stories with a garage underneath and  
the second story sits right at the level of that. With the old house there is no backyard at all to the  
house, and it goes directly into that greenspace. We actually designed on that comes up to that  
level and they will actually have a little bit of a backyard, then connects to that greenspace, just to  
keep that same feel with the original vision.  
Councilmember Dent said the other thing that I was suggesting is to make sure it is ready for EV  
chargers. Which is easy enough, if you have a garage.  
Mr. Propst said absolutely. We have definitely been working with someone on that too.  
Chair Baugh asked if there were any more questions for the applicant’s representatives. Hearing  
none, he opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone in the room or on the phone  
wishing to speak to the request.  
Todd Rhea, a resident of 1141 South Dogwood Drive, came forward to speak to the request. He  
said I worked with the original developer of this property. Some of you may have known him or  
remembered him, Dean Weaver. When making this decision, I want to provide the Commission  
with a little context as to where we were in 2013 and where we are now. Dean was an urbanist  
visionary in our community. He worked really hard and brought some of the first R-7 in the City  
and smaller R-5 projects in the County ten or twelve years ago. We were all learning as we were  
going, the details in the Master Plan. At the time Collicello North was rezoned and permitted, he  
was also working on another subdivision called Greenport which is in the County off of Old  
Reservoir Road close to the hospital which has duplexes, very small detached single-family  
homes, some townhomes. The first type of the things that we are talking about today in mixed use  
communities with affordable housing. Greenport was the first project Dean materially completed  
before passing away during Covid. His family was left with Collicello North, which is now owned  
by his sister and brother-in-law who do not live locally. We have been working hard to identify a  
partner to bring the Collicello North vision to the City in a location that is perfectly suited for  
affordable and workforce housing. We are really pleased with the Propst Family Development  
team. Their attention, their desire to honor Dean and his vision for this community, and do it in a  
way that can be practical and not sit there in its current condition which does not serve anyone.  
This is one of those unique situations where I think context is important when you consider the  
reasons behind and the rationale for the modest changes to the Master Plan. We wanted to vouch  
for the applicant and hope that you all give them the consideration and approval of the project. It  
would be great to see Collicello North infill there in that location. I walk up there all the time, and  
it is always something that I personally have wanted to see happen and I think we are on the cusp.  
I thank you all for your consideration this evening.  
Margot Zahner, a resident of 910 Collicello Street, came forward to speak to the request. She  
said I know many of you. It is nice to see you. Thank you for your service to our community. We  
were encouraged to see the sign about rezoning. I am excited for this project and do want to  
remember Dean and his vision that he brought. I will say as a homeowner there it has been a long  
time waiting for something to happen there. Dean made some things really possible for people  
who were in tenuous housing situations to have housing in the interim. We really appreciated  
working with him for that. Both my husband and I want to make sure that as we are thinking  
about this development, which will really directly impact us, it is done in a way with good  
communication. I want to just say that I am a little surprised as the only homeowner there that we  
have not had any contact. So, I want to welcome that and encourage that because it feels bad to  
call Meg and ask, “what is going on?” We had reached out to Manny a couple of times, and in  
that I wanted to say publicly we are eager to work together. We believe in infill. We believe in  
working and building community, but I want to issue an invitation and also express sort of  
surprise. I am excited to have this happen and hopeful that the way it can be done is with high  
quality building in a way that would help our community. Thank you.  
Tom Benevento, a resident of 910 Collicello Street, came forward to speak to the request. He  
said it is also nice to see many of you I know as well. Thanks again for your work here. We have  
been wondering what has been happening for a number of years on that property. I think the  
couple of things that I would just want to check in about is the quality of the buildings, if they are  
not going to be at the standard of energy efficiency, which also lends itself to making sure the  
houses are well built. I do want to caution anything that… I know there is a need to get in  
economically to build, but I also want to make sure they are houses that will last. Not like with  
student housing for a little while, and they get kind of beat up and then they turn into something  
else. I would like to make sure that the quality of the construction... I think that energy efficiency is  
critical in designing in this day and age that we have and they will last longer if that is done. I  
appreciate that you cannot just put solar on it right away, but making it solar ready and orienting  
them south is really wise. I appreciate that thoughtfulness. I think its vision that Dean has had,  
which is really appreciated over a number of years working with him, is to make it more of a  
greenspace. I would recommend that the number of trees in that site. *t would be nice to keep it  
looking green and not just urban and asphalt-y but to really consider that within this. The last  
question I have is about the main brick house there. I am not sure there has been any conversation  
about that. I know Dean had a vision around that as being sort of a community space in and of  
itself a place where you could receive guests or have a workout place or a coffee shop or  
something like that. I know that house has been getting more and more deteriorated over the  
years. I have not really heard what that is about, so I am kind of curious how that fits into this  
whole thing. I do appreciate the smaller sized housing and trying to get more people in town.  
Thank you.  
Councilmember Dent said come to think of it, I meant to ask about that too the plans for the brick  
building that is there. Does it plan to be refurbished?  
Chair Baugh said we have talked about it some on the site visit yesterday. Does anyone want to  
come up and speak about the plans for the existing brick residence on the property?  
Mr. Bowman said I will do my best to answer that question and invite Mr. Propst to correct me if  
anything I say is wrong. With respect to the existing building that is there on the site nothing that  
we are proposing changes the original vision. Currently, I believe the historical use of that is a  
residence. I think the intent would be to come in and potentially fix it up and use it as a residential  
use for a while, while the development is getting built out. The long-term vision for that property in  
this Master Plan, I believe, is that it could be residential or potentially mixed use. The idea that a  
coffee shop or some mixed-use component could come in there is not something that we are  
changing. Our intent is to come in and make improvements to that structure.  
Vice Chair Porter said the intent is to sell these units correct? These are not meant to be rental  
units?  
Mr. Bowman said correct, they are not intended to be rental units.  
Chair Baugh said thank you for that clarification. It is before us for further consideration.  
Commissioner Seitz said I would like to make a few comments. I am thrilled to see this project  
moving ahead. Dean was a close friend, long before we ever became business colleagues. The  
stipulated designs that you are eliminating were done by my firm, and I am thrilled because I think  
that is key to making it move ahead. I really appreciate the fact that you have kept the essence of  
what he was trying to do intact. It has been hard to see that project sit fallow for all of these years.  
Just for clarification, any business relationship I had with Dean terminated when he passed away. I  
do not have any skin in this game at all. It was indeed a visionary project in 2012/2013 as it came  
into passing. It still is. I think the mere fact of creating dense, moderately sized housing is  
environmentally impactful. I would love to see the solar and hope people avail themselves of that  
solar readiness. I think there is more to be gained for moving ahead than it is regretting the loss of  
certain aspects of it. We were also the architects for many of the projects at Greenport. There  
was a constant struggle with Dean between these aspirations and what the market would bear.  
Any realtor that ever worked with Dean would also understand that intensely. Thank you and Mr.  
Rhea. Please pass along to the Kin Group my appreciation for this.  
Councilmember Dent said I would like to make a motion to approve the request to rezone the  
various addresses at Collicello [Street] and Kates Lane as presented by staff.  
Commissioner Seitz seconded the motion.  
Commissioner Kettler said there seems to be quite a lot of memory in this room associated with  
this particular project and this particular land. As someone who is looking at it for the first time  
and has never really considered it before, I do not know if I have ever seen a single-family housing  
development that I have liked more than this one as proposal and by a significant margin. In terms  
of its design and how it approaches the size of the developments and their relationship to each  
other and its emphasis on a shared green space and walking between them. I am really impressed  
by it.  
Vice Chair Porter said I would only add that this is greatly in the community’s interest to have this  
built. This property has sat fallow for a long time. It is a wonderful thing to see this move forward.  
I could not be happier with the fact that this is the direction that you are heading. This is a very  
good thing for our community, and I am excited that this build is going to be occurring.  
Chair Baugh said, as somebody who was around in 2013, I liked this project then. While we have  
heard from the development side about how then it was the early days of R-7, and a lot of  
working our way through it. I did not work with Dean as a colleague, but worked with him as an  
elected official who was consulted about this development as it was in pipeline. Like some, I have  
been disappointed that it is in many respects has been sitting there this time. I will say as  
somebody who was around when we created R-7, we wished there would have been more of  
this. I agree with Commissioner Kettler, I am glad that your new look agrees with my old look. I  
will also just note, briefly, when we took this up before my recollection was that we had  
considerably more than two people who lived close by show up at the public hearing. A fair  
number of them were opposed to it. I think for whatever reason maybe the time and the fact that it  
sat there, but it was a lot of not unusual stuff of because it is easy to forget now that Collicello  
[Street] dead ended at that property. The road did not even go through and there was a lot of not  
unusual concern about “now the traffic is going to be coming through.” Of course, there will be  
more traffic once you develop it. I am not even sure it was a unanimous vote. It may not have  
been, but it did get approved. I just have to do a brief shoutout Mr. Benevento, I was thinking  
about you last month when we were sitting here considering a different project. I almost called  
you out because I recalled your presentation to Council on the unrelated topic of how we deal  
with automobiles going into the future. In yet another development found that one of the core  
issues for a lot of people was this sense that new development has to accommodate all of the  
worst case scenarios that you can imagine for vehicular traffic. The notion that coming up with  
something that actually maybe gives people alternatives somehow is going to be a disaster.  
Needless to say, I was not on that side of the argument. I talked enough, so one of the things I  
have considered saying, and edited out, was a specific reference to your presentation. I do  
remember saying as a council member, I anticipated bringing that up again many times. I hope that  
my colleagues on Council would remember, the first thing you have to do is build out the  
infrastructure to accommodate the vehicles for everybody that is going to live there, and not in any  
way, shape or form annoy anybody who might possibly live by or drive by, then you are going to  
be working considerably at cross purposes to a lot of things you want to achieve.  
Commissioner Kettler said I do not mean to belabor that point, but I would really like to see that  
presentation if you let me know when that happened.  
Chair Baugh said it would have been in September or October of 2022.  
Vice Chair Porter said I think the requests are reasonable. I do understand the need for getting  
some affordability for you all to be able to move forward. I think that flexibility is important and  
the things that you are asking I think are extremely reasonable.  
Councilmember Dent said I will agree even though I was going “yay solar” that they have the  
option to put it in when it is built means that anyone who can afford that or wants to put it on can  
have that option. They are going to be the owners of it. It makes sense.  
Chair Baugh called for a roll call vote.  
Commissioner Seitz  
Councilmember Dent  
Commissioner Kettler  
Vice Chair Porter  
Chair Baugh  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
The motion to recommend approval of the Master Plan amendment passed (5-0). The  
recommendation will move forward to City Council on May 12, 2026.  
A
motion was made by City Council Representative Dent, seconded by Seitz, that this  
PH-Rezoning be recommended for approval to the City Council, due back on 5/12/2026. The  
motion carried with a recorded roll call vote taken as follows:  
5 - Baugh, City Council Representative Dent, Porter, Kettler and Seitz  
Yes:  
No:  
0
2 - Alsindi and Jezior  
Absent:  
5.  
New Business - Other Items  
5.a.  
Consider initiating Zoning Ordinance amendments related to poultry hatcheries,  
shopping center parking calculations, and the Zoning Ordinance update project  
Chair Baugh read the request and asked staff to review.  
Staff requests Planning Commission initiate consideration of Zoning Ordinance amendments  
related to:  
Poultry Hatcheries in the M-1 General Industrial District - Article R. - M-1 District - Section  
10-3-96, Uses permitted by right - To amend subsection (22) to add poultry hatcheries as a by  
right use and to create a new term and definition for “poultry hatchery.” The intent is to codify a  
long-standing interpretation that a poultry hatchery is a by right use in the M-1 District.  
Shopping Center Parking Calculations - Article G. - Off-Street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking -  
Section 10-3-25, Off-street vehicle parking regulations - To add a new subsection to provide a  
parking calculation for shopping centers and clarify when parking requirements must be  
recalculated when specifically applying this use. The intent is to codify a standing interpretation for  
the application of Sections 10-3-25 and 10-3-27 to developments that qualify as a shopping  
center under Article F.  
Zoning Ordinance Update Project - The existing Zoning Ordinance (ZO) was last thoroughly  
evaluated and comprehensively re-written in 1997. In the ensuing time, many changes, both major  
and minor, have been made to the text of the ordinance, including the addition of districts and  
overlays. This has resulted in outdated requirements, internal inconsistencies, and an ordinance  
that can be difficult for community members to comprehend. Additionally, new ways of thinking  
about planning and zoning combined with new techniques and principles for implementing adopted  
plans offer ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of City planning and zoning. This  
project was initiated in July 2020 with the support of Planning Commission and City Council.  
However, a formal motion by Planning Commission to direct staff to initiate ZO amendments had  
not occurred.  
Should Planning Commission agree to direct staff to initiate consideration of the ZO amendments,  
then the following motion may be stated:  
I move that the Planning Commission initiate consideration of zoning ordinance  
amendments to the City of Harrisonburg Zoning Ordinance to amend provisions  
relating to poultry hatcheries in the M-1 district, shopping center parking  
calculations, and the Zoning Ordinance Update Project.  
The Planning Commission finds that such amendments are required by the public  
necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, and hereby  
directs staff to prepare appropriate draft ordinances for public hearings and  
recommendations in accordance with § 15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia.  
Ms. Dang asked if there were any questions for staff.  
Commissioner Seitz said because this is fresh on my mind from being in Richmond and doing a  
bunch of reading right now, in the Planning Commissioner training, they make it very clear that the  
Comprehensive Plan is a policy document representing the vision and will of the community and  
the zoning is the legislative piece that supports it. My memory which may be wrong is that the  
current zoning effort that was undertaken in 2020 was in response to things that were in the 2018  
Comprehensive Plan. I know it has been amended at least once since then. I guess my question is,  
does that Comprehensive Plan still represent the vision of the City of Harrisonburg because a lot  
has changed since 2018.  
Councilmember Dent said not really. If I had my druthers, I would have said let’s do the  
Comprehensive Plan first because as you say that is the vision and let the Zoning Ordinance follow  
from that, but for whatever reason we put the cart before the horse doing the zoning first and then  
the Comprehensive Plan update would be due after that.  
Commissioner Seitz said that is why I am saying it. They did follow it- 2018 for the  
Comprehensive Plan and 2020 for the zoning initiation. Now we are keeping moving forward.  
Again, some of what I know is in there I have not been keeping up, let’s bring it on. At the same  
time, I just wonder, from a community dynamic point of view, the higher costs of living, the  
housing stresses, the polarization in society at large and so on. They also make it clear in  
Richmond that the Comprehensive Plan is this Commission’s responsibility. I guess I am just  
curious about the thoughts. I suspect Councilmember Dent, that if we wanted to say no let’s stop  
and do the Comprehensive Plan, we could do that.  
Councilmember Dent said we could, but do we want to derail this process now?  
Ms. Dang said you are right. All the things you said are valid. At risk of getting ahead and talking  
about things that we were going to share with you next month, the Zoning Ordinance amendments  
that Mr. Russ and staff have been working on now will build a foundation and will be like a first  
step. Then there is going to be more, possibly contentious or issues that require a lot more  
thought, that it may be done concurrently with a Comprehensive Plan update that would follow the  
Zoning Ordinance amendment or could be done after. The Zoning Ordinance update on a chunk  
of things. Then the Comprehensive Plan update. Then concurrently maybe small updates to the  
Zoning Ordinance and then perhaps bigger updates that the Comprehensive Plan could be  
informing. We will share more with you all next month on that.  
Mr. Fletcher said I was sitting here smiling because it is such a timely question and, in fact, we  
have not even had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Russ about this.  
Ms. Dang said I did this afternoon. Right after you and I talked, I had a conversation with him.  
Mr. Russ said part of rewriting the Zoning Ordinance is it has accumulated quite a lot of  
information over the course of 30-something years of amendments and a lot of cross-references  
and inconsistent terminology. There is a lot of administrative work to get it to a point where once it  
is done, making additional amendments should be a simpler process once the community has  
decided what those amendments should look like. I do not think we imagine that the Zoning  
Ordinance will be updated, and then it will sit again for a lengthy period of time. I think that we  
anticipate that we will be right back to amending it.  
Councilmember Dent said that is reassuring to me that there is that phased approached because I  
imagine once we really dig into the Comprehensive Plan, we will need the second round of  
updates.  
Commissioner Seitz said that all makes sense to me, and I understand the complexity and totally  
get the idea that there is just a certain amount of cleaning up that needs to be done and perhaps  
more substantive amendments come further on. That said, I still would feel a lot better supporting  
the third piece of this after having seen the presentation that you guys are going to make next  
meeting.  
Ms. Dang said if you all want to do that, that is something you can do.  
Commissioner Kettler said in terms of me supporting the third item in particular I mean, I am in  
favor of zoning reform so I would like to see that move forward. I appreciate some of the detail  
that you just gave in terms of the interaction with the Comprehensive Plan and your question about  
it because I have many of the same thoughts having recently gone to the training. I think doing at  
least some of those at the same time would be helpful in terms of the amount of various public  
interactions that are going to be needed just for the zoning reform part, not even talking about the  
Comprehensive Plan. I appreciate that.  
Chair Baugh said it sounds like there is some sentiment for kicking the can on the third one. I  
personally would be okay with approving it now because I think this is a foundational piece of  
really making it official for the record that staff is even authorized to be working on it. What that is  
to be determined. I guess the other thought I had is that I feel like sometimes we get a little  
bogged down in the details of the process and we forget things. At times, people put a  
disproportionate amount of importance on physical presence at a public hearing when they are  
free to send us emails and communicate with us all the time. There is nothing magical about  
information being conveyed then and I am thinking similarly here that it is a significant ordinance  
amendment there will be a certain level of public input and process related to that as well. I am a  
little less concerned about it getting out of whack with the Comprehensive Plan.  
Commissioner Seitz said I understand that but I guess I still would request that we approve the  
first two pieces and delay the third until after the presentation because I think that one of the things  
I am coming to appreciate about doing my homework is that I think as a Commission, I feel the  
need to take more responsibility for firsthand understanding of things that I know staff, and I  
completely value and trust the City staff, but I feel like I need to make more of an effort to have  
firsthand understanding of some of these things rather than just approving the things I am asked to  
approve. I think when the zoning comes up, I would like to hear that presentation next month and  
then we can take this action.  
Chair Baugh said is that a motion?  
Councilmember Dent said I have a question about the process. When you said that we learned  
last year this is vaguely ringing some bells, but I do not remember the exact situation where  
something was presented to us that it was not supposed to be up to staff to present to us an  
amendment. We have to request an amendment. Staff comes back with it, adding that loop in  
there.  
Ms. Dang said we had learned last year, after another group had pointed it out to us, that in the  
State Code for Zoning Ordinance amendments to be presented to you all for recommendation  
and go onto City Council it first needs to have an action by Planning Commission or [City]  
Council either by motion or resolution.  
Vice Chair Porter said I found it to be quite memorable, and I am remembering exactly why this  
occurred. I think it is good that we have this knowledge now. I would also only add that, I want  
to understand the process of writing these ordinances better, as well. Making a mistake that takes  
something that was by right and now it is nonconforming just based on how we have structured  
the language of what we are approving and what we are asking to be approved. Again, it is not  
scolding but it is these sorts of little mistakes and things. I want to make sure that process is such  
that we are bringing forward good, tight, and well-considered ordinance changes before we  
actually vote on them. It is having to go back and clean up some things sometimes, especially in  
short order, just seems like it is not something we should be doing. I would also just simply say  
that I am very much of the mind of Commissioner Seitz as well. I could not have said it any better.  
I think he expresses my feelings on the Comprehensive Plan and its need to be looked at again.  
Also, just the proper ordering of how this should fall in my mind as well. I would like to make a  
motion to separate the two items before us and vote those as a separate motion.  
Chair Baugh said let me just make a suggestion here since I cannot make the motion. I think staff  
wants us to read this into the record, as opposed to this being one where we say yeah whatever  
staff said.  
Commissioner Kettler said I do have a few questions on the second item if that is alright. Just to  
make sure that I understand the second one correctly. Where this might apply is there is a  
combined shopping center or there is a variety of shops all around and they have a shared parking  
space and then because the parking minimum is for one kind of business are not necessarily the  
same as another when they switch out it is going to get weird.  
Ms. Dang said that is part of it. There is more to it then our ordinance right now says, something  
to the effect of, when uses are known in the proposed development that is the parking calculation  
you should use. Right now, as we are working or kind of brainstorming and working through this,  
what we would like to do is, if it meets a definition that we will define as a shopping center let’s  
just call it a shopping center and not worry about the known uses are because we know those are  
going to change over the lifetime of the property. If we know that the majority of the square  
footage in a shopping center is offices, but it could potentially turn into retail which will require  
more parking, either the developer is going to have to think ahead and plan on what if, in the  
future this all turns into restaurants or something else with a higher parking requirement, let’s just  
give them one number that will apply and they can change the uses.  
Mr. Fletcher said basically we are codifying a flexible interpretation we have made for a long time.  
Ms. Dang said I do not know when it started, but it has been made.  
Commissioner Seitz said Commissioner Kettler, when I went and actually looked up the zoning  
sections that were reference in here, I was surprised at what I knew to be the practice was not  
explicitly stated. Having been involved in renovating and changing uses in one space in a shopping  
center to the other, I have seen how this operated and it makes sense. For example, what we just  
did with the tavern/game room. That converted from a retail establishment that probably had an  
assembly component. I do not know if it was recalculation of all that parking done or not, but  
what they describe as a practice is one I think of common sense that does not impact… common  
sense may not be the right word, but there is no risk to the public by adopting this in terms of  
providing enough parking. I would actually say that probably the greater problem with shopping  
centers, in general, I am not talking specifically about this, is that there really is often times too  
much parking provided.  
Commissioner Kettler said that is, actually, the core of why I am bringing this up. To my mind one  
very important thing that I would like to see in the Zoning [Ordinance] update is just an elimination  
of parking minimums generally City wide. If that is something that is viable that we can achieve,  
and I think and hope that it is, then I wonder how necessary it is to be changing that formula here  
where our larger goal is to… well, a variety of goals in connection with zoning reform. I imagine a  
few of them at least are going to lower the cost of housing and make it more walkable and  
bikeable in general and make things cheaper for people. That is part of why it is not entirely clear  
to me the need to investigate that, if we are already pursuing the Zoning Ordinance now.  
Councilmember Dent said I would second that in the sense that, from what you are describing, if  
they have to anticipate potential higher traffic uses later, that might lead to over estimating the  
parking needed which is the opposite direction I would like to go or agree with eliminating or  
lower parking minimums at least.  
Commissioner Kettler said if you recall there was a presentation three or four years ago. It was  
from Professor Norton at UVA, I think, doing a talk about parking minimums at the library. It was  
shockingly not very well attended. He went into a long history of parking minimums and why they  
are what they are. They often have a tangential connection of what is going on there often times. I  
am not speaking from our Zoning code exactly, but it is often times based on how many cubic feet  
of water in a pool or how many nuns in an abbey, it relates to how many parking spots there are.  
You all know far more about our zoning code than I do, but often times these are either copied  
from some other local municipality or just made up. When I look at parking minimums, if we are  
going to have parking minimums at all I would like to understand why we have them and if there is  
a logical connection to the actual need.  
Commissioner Seitz said in absence of zoning reform my question is, would initiating or redoing  
this lighten a current administrative burden for staff?  
Ms. Dang said yes. I think it would also help with development or when other folks are building a  
new shopping center or going through the experience of changing out tenants, this will clarify what  
I am hearing there is interest in.  
Mr. Fletcher said it is definitely more business friendly. Our interpretation has been quite flexible. I  
do not want to put words in your mouth Commissioner Kettler, but I think that once you  
understand a bit more of the detail you might say, oh this actually is toward the philosophy you are  
going toward. Mr. Seitz said that a lot of the shopping centers parking is often times overbuilt. I  
think that is true for a lot of the modern shopping centers. It is the older shopping centers where  
we have been able to make an interpretation that has been flexible for property owners, but we  
really need to codify it and that is what Ms. Dang is talking about because this will help so that  
they are not adding parking when the ordinance might say otherwise.  
Councilmember Dent said if they updated an old shopping center, they will be less likely to be  
required to add more parking.  
Mr. Fletcher said our Zoning Administrator feels very strongly about making this amendment  
because in his review of the code he is thinking that if you end up with a shopping center where  
there are all restaurant uses, and restaurants are highest intense parking requirement, the code  
needs to reflect that we are not going to require 1 per 100 square feet of parking space for every  
single inch of a shopping center. By making this change, it makes it more flexible for them and  
would reduce the parking demand.  
Ms. Dang said we still can have the community discussion about parking minimums and  
maximums whatever it is in the future.  
Commissioner Kettler said just one last question, would delaying a vote on the third item here until  
next month affect any particular timeline that you have?  
Ms. Dang said no.  
Councilmember Dent said I think on third one, I would share Chair Baugh’s thought of go ahead  
and let staff be working on it, if they would require our approval to even be doing that. If you  
want to postpone it, I would vote to go ahead with it.  
Commissioner Kettler said I would be in favor of all three for some of the reasons stated by Chair  
Baugh. I do not feel particularly strongly one way or the other ,if I am being completely honest  
with you.  
Councilmember Dent said how do we vote on that?  
Chair Baugh said you just read in the record to move the suggested language from staff. You do  
not have to edit it.  
Commissioner Kettler said it sounds like there is three in favor of approving all three. That is what  
it sounds like.  
Vice Chair Porter said I would only say that I think that it is just a little cleaner. I think that I  
would like to hear the presentation. It is very clear that work has been done to this point, but this  
is effectively a moot point. I feel like just for the purposes, if nothing else, this is just simply a little  
better governance to be able to divide these items and deal with them separately. I do think there  
is value to hearing that presentation before making the vote. If it would have delayed the process  
at all, I would be voting on the other side of this. I have been waiting for this for a while and have  
been asking poor Mr. Fletcher many times about this throughout the years. I do not want to see it  
delayed by any reason, but it is not going to make a difference one way or another I just think it is  
simply a little cleaner.  
Commissioner Seitz said I would ask that either somebody make the motion as it stands or  
somebody make the amended motion. I do not have the notation here, so I do not know.  
Vice Chair Porter said I was trying to make the motion but, again, I would much rather have this  
be a vote that is supporting the stated motion as opposed to having an unstated motion and having  
to go through the other way around. I am going to throw this out here and just ahead and say I  
would like to move that Planning Commission initiate consideration of Zoning Ordinance  
amendments to the City of Harrisonburg Zoning Ordinance to amend provisions related to poultry  
hatcheries in the M-1 district and shopping center parking calculations. 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 and recommendation, in accordance subsection 15.2-2286 of the Code of  
Virginia.  
Commissioner Kettler seconded the motion.  
Chair Baugh said I think Commissioner Kettler and I are thinking the same thing that we had spent  
a whole lot of time over this, and I am not going to lose sleep over any of this. I have said what  
my preference would be, and I am happy to vote for the motion.  
Chair Baugh called for a roll call vote.  
Commissioner Seitz  
Councilmember Dent  
Commissioner Kettler  
Vice Chair Porter  
Chair Baugh  
Aye  
No  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
The motion to recommend approval of initiating Zoning Ordinance amendments passed (4-1).  
Councilmember Dent said I was only voting no because I would rather bundle all three.  
A
motion was made by Porter, seconded by Kettler, that this Zoning Ordinance be  
recommended for approval to the City Council, due back on 5/12/2026.  
with a recorded roll call vote taken as follows:  
The motion carried  
4 - Baugh, Porter, Kettler and Seitz  
1 - City Council Representative Dent  
2 - Alsindi and Jezior  
Yes:  
No:  
Absent:  
5.b.  
Clarify action taken during the March 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting  
regarding the special use permit request at 851 Madison Street  
Chair Baugh read the request and asked staff to review.  
Ms. Dang said staff requests Planning Commission clarify its action taken during the March 11,  
2026, meeting regarding the special use permit (SUP) request at 851 Madison Street. During the  
March 11 meeting, staff recommended approval of the SUP to allow a reduction in the required  
number of vehicle parking spaces with the following condition:  
The special use permit shall apply only to the two planned dwelling units as shown  
on the conceptual layout.  
During the meeting, Vice Chair Porter said:  
I would like to go ahead and make a motion to accept the staff’s recommendation  
to approve the special use permit with the special condition regarding the  
prohibition of subdividing the lot further.  
The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP with the condition  
recommended by Vice Chair Porter. However, the condition must be reasonably related the SUP  
and the impacts to be addressed. The condition cannot prohibit future subdivision of the lot.  
If the Commission agrees with staff’s recommendation, then the following motion may be stated,  
seconded, and voted on:  
I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use  
permit with staff’s recommended condition.  
Vice Chair Porter said I apologize; I think it was my misstatement of the motion that probably  
curated this problem.  
Commissioner Seitz said it was not my intent to prohibit future subdivision of the lot. I move that  
the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the staff’s  
recommended condition.  
Commissioner Kettler seconded the motion.  
Chair Baugh called for a roll call vote.  
Commissioner Seitz  
Councilmember Dent  
Commissioner Kettler  
Vice Chair Porter  
Chair Baugh  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
The motion to recommend approval of clarifying the special use permit request from the March  
11, 2026 meeting passed (5-0).  
A motion was made by Seitz, seconded by Kettler, that this Action Item be approved.  
motion carried with a recorded roll call vote taken as follows:  
The  
5 - Baugh, City Council Representative Dent, Porter, Kettler and Seitz  
Yes:  
No:  
0
2 - Alsindi and Jezior  
Absent:  
5.c.  
Clarify action taken during the March 11, 2026, Planning Commission meeting  
regarding the rezoning request at 435, 445, 457, 473, 483 & 495 South Main Street  
and 282, 288, 294 & 298 South Liberty Street (The Link Apartments)  
Chair Baugh read the request and asked staff to review.  
Ms. Dang said staff requests Planning Commission clarify its action taken during the March 11,  
2026, meeting regarding the rezoning request for The Link Apartments.  
During the March 11 meeting, staff recommended approval of the rezoning. While Planning  
Commission voted on the rezoning, the specific motion at hand was not explicitly stated for the  
record. To ensure the record accurately reflects Planning Commission's intent, staff requests a  
formal clarification of that prior action.  
If the Commission agrees, then the following motion may be stated, seconded, and voted on:  
I move to clarify for the record that, by its vote on March 11, 2026, regarding 'The Link  
Apartments,’ the Planning Commission intended its action to be a vote on a motion to  
recommend approval of the rezoning to City Council.  
Commissioner Kettler said just to clarify, this is a motion to clarify the purpose of the previous  
one, not voting on it again.  
Ms. Dang said that is correct. If I may offer that the vote before as I understood it was an  
intention to vote on recommending approval of the rezoning.  
Councilmember Dent asked how did we word that? What was missing about it?  
Vice Chair Porter said there was no motion. I think we were all stating our opinion and there was  
obviously a lot of discussion and I just think in the process we called the question and got a vote  
and did not state a motion.  
Commissioner Kettler said I move to clarify for the record that by its vote on March 11, 2026  
regarding The Link Apartments the Planning Commission intended its action to be a vote on a  
motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to City Council.  
Councilmember Dent seconded the motion.  
Chair Baugh called for a roll call vote.  
Commissioner Seitz  
Councilmember Dent  
Commissioner Kettler  
Vice Chair Porter  
Chair Baugh  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
Aye  
The motion to clarify the action on the rezoning request from the March 11, 2026 meeting passed  
(5-0).  
A
motion was made by Kettler, seconded by City Council Representative Dent, that this  
Action Item be approved. The motion carried with a recorded roll call vote taken as follows:  
5 - Baugh, City Council Representative Dent, Porter, Kettler and Seitz  
Yes:  
No:  
0
2 - Alsindi and Jezior  
Absent:  
7.  
8.  
Public Comment  
None.  
Report of Secretary & Committees  
8.a. Rockingham County Planning Commission Liaison Report  
Vice Chair Porter reported on the April 7, 2026 Rockingham County Planning Commission  
meeting. The following item was on the agenda:  
·
Public hearing request from White Barn LLC for a special use permit at Tax Map #115  
-A-38F for an event center, recreation or entertainment outside a building, and recreation  
or entertainment inside a building - Denied (3-1)  
8.b. Board of Zoning Appeals Report  
None.  
8.c. City Council Report  
Councilmember Dent reported that there were no public hearing items from Planning Commission  
presented to City Council on March 24, 2026.  
9.  
Other Matters  
Commissioner Kettler said when we were talking about the Zoning Ordinance amendments, I  
noticed that they all say staff initiated. I wonder if any other initiation process is a thing.  
Ms. Dang said it could be applicant initiated. That is what we saw with the meat processing and  
storage facility. That was an example.  
Mr. Russ said text amendments cannot be [initiated by the] applicant. The applicant can  
essentially request it, and staff can bring it to Planning Commission’s attention. Formally, there is  
no application process in the same way there is for [unintelligible].  
Ms. Dang said let me find a different choice of words on this memorandum and not confuse the  
term initiation and how it is used for Planning Commission to direct staff to initiate the work. I will  
find another word to describe how the request came to be.  
Commissioner Kettler said does the Commission initiate, asking staff to look into a particular  
amendment, is that something that we can do?  
Ms. Dang said yes.  
Commissioner Kettler said Commissioner Alsindi indicated that he had an interest in making a  
presentation as it relates to Downtown and pedestrian transportation. I believe he made some  
version of this presentation to Planning Commission before but there has been an over 50 percent  
turnover including me. I just wanted to note that he would want that on the agenda for next month.  
9.a. Review Summary of next month's applications  
Ms. Dang reviewed the items anticipated for the May agenda:  
·
·
·
·
Special Use Permit - 1315 Carrera Lane (Short-Term Rental in R-1)  
Rezoning - 850 Canterbury Court (R-1 to R-8)  
Rezoning - 1351 & 1361 Peach Grove Ave (R-5C/B-2 to R-5C)  
Special Use Permit - 1351 & 1361 Peach Grove Ave (more than 12 units per building in  
R-5)  
·
·
Rezoning - 1340 South Main Street (proffer amendment, R-5C)  
Special Use Permit - 1340 South Main Street (to allow multifamily building with more  
than 12 units in R-5)  
·
·
Special Use Permit - 1340 South Main Street (to allow retail, offices, restaurants, etc. in  
R-5)  
Update on Zoning Ordinance Update Project  
One meeting was recommended.  
10.  
Adjourment  
The meeting adjourned at 7:42 PM.  
NOTE TO THE PUBLIC  
Staff will be available at 4:00 p.m. on the Tuesday before the next Planning Commission  
meeting for those interested in going on a field trip to view the sites on the next agenda.  
INTERPRETATION SERVICES  
Language interpretation service in Spanish, Arabic and Kurdish is available for Planning  
Commission meetings. To ensure that interpreters are available at the meeting, interested  
persons must request the accommodation at least four (4) calendar days in advance of the  
meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (540) 432-7701 or by submitting a request online at:  
www.harrisonburgva.gov/interpreter-request-form  
El servicio de intérpretes inglés-español está disponible para las reuniones públicas de la  
Comisión de Planificación. Para asegurar la disponibilidad de intérpretes, cualquier  
interesado deberá solicitar la presencia de un intérprete al menos cuatro (4) días calendarios  
antes de la reunión comunicándose con la Secretaría Municipal al (540) 432-7701 o por  
medio de la página por internet al:  
https://www.harrisonburgva.gov/interpreter-request-form  
NOTE TO THE PUBLIC  
Residents/Media will be able to attend the meeting.  
The Public can also view the meeting live on:  
•
•
The City’s website, https://harrisonburg-va.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx  
Public Education Government Channel 1072  
A phone line will also be live where residents will be allowed to call in and speak with Planning  
Commission during the Public Hearings and the Public Comments portion of the night’s  
meeting. We ask those that wish to speak during the public comment period to not call in  
until after all the public hearings and public comment on those have been heard. This will  
avoid anyone calling on any other item from holding up the queue and then being asked to call  
back at a later time.  
The telephone number to call in is: (540) 437-2687  
Residents also may provide comment prior to the meeting by visiting this page:  
www.harrisonburgva.gov/agenda-comments