OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting: Rezonings, Beekeeping, Baxter Drive Items – June 12, 2024

City Council & Planning CommissionWednesday, June 12, 2024
BodyHarrisonburg, Virginia
SessionCity Council & Planning Commission
DateWednesday, June 12, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:52:32

Transcript — Verbatim
10:53

Should be, yeah.

10:55

Okay.

10:56

All right.

10:57

I will um call this meeting of the Harrisonburg Planning Commission to order for Wednesday, June 12th.

11:04

Um we do have a quorum with four of uh with four members present.

11:10

Um we are expecting a fifth at some point.

11:14

Um do we have any motions or corrections for last month's minutes?

11:23

I'd like a motion to approve um May 8th, 2024 minutes.

11:31

Okay, we have a motion.

11:36

Uh do you have okay we just we're just looking for a second?

11:42

Sorry.

11:43

Okay.

11:43

We have a motion and a second to approve uh last month's minutes.

11:47

Uh all in favor of approving last month's minutes as uh presented in the packets, please say aye.

11:53

Aye.

11:53

Aye.

11:54

All opposed.

11:55

Any abstentions?

11:57

Okay.

11:58

We now move on to item 4A uh to consider a request to rezone 448 Kelly Street.

12:07

Good evening.

12:08

Um good evening.

12:09

The applicant um for this property is requesting to rezone Kelly 448 Kelly Street from R2 to R8C.

12:17

Um the property is currently zoned R2 and is designated as neighborhood residential in the comprehensive plan.

12:24

And then here is an aerial of the site.

12:29

The applicant is requesting to rezone um this parcel from R2 to R8C.

12:35

Um in the report, the applicant explains that they want to rezone the property to be able to add a porch to the front of the home.

12:42

The required front yard setback in the R2 district, which is what it is currently zoned, is a 30-feet setback um which would prohibit the property owner from building onto the front of the home in the way that they wish.

13:05

The R8 district allows for a 10-foot front yard setback in the applicant with this applicant's submitted proffer.

13:11

This would restrict the front yard setback to 20 feet instead of the 10 in the R8 district, which would provide flexibility for the applicant to build on the front of their property.

13:24

Um structures along Kelly Street have uh varied front yard setbacks.

13:29

Um staff believes that reducing the front yard setback on this would not be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood with this proper.

13:40

Staff believes that this request doesn't have any major adverse effects on the surrounding properties isn't can and is consistent with the comprehensive plan of neighborhood residential.

13:49

Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.

13:52

Okay, thank you.

13:53

Do we have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing on this request?

13:59

Yes.

13:59

Uh yes.

14:02

Because I was looking along the entire street.

14:06

Would 20 feet from as a setback?

14:11

Would that apply to even those houses that are the closest to the street?

14:17

I know you're probably gonna look into it, but this setback, this proper would only be for this.

14:22

I know it's only for this property, but I'm going.

14:25

This is a rezoning to an R8.

14:27

Yes.

14:27

And these these tend to prop up more when people hear, oh, I can actually add on a porch and they start doing more of them.

14:39

And I'm just thinking about the future of that neighborhood.

14:44

Is 20 feet reasonable distance as a setback.

14:51

As opposed to if if that wasn't added as a proffer, you said it would be 10.

14:56

Yes.

14:57

So the houses kind of vary beyond around this area.

15:02

They are set back between generally about 20 and 30 feet from Kelly Street.

15:07

So with this proffer it would remain consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the surrounding structures.

15:12

Does that as well?

15:15

Yeah.

15:16

Okay.

15:17

And there may be I don't and I don't know the setback on some of the other houses along the street, but there may be some non-conforming properties that were closer to the curb than Yes.

15:30

Okay.

15:31

Any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing?

15:36

All right.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use███████████████████████████████████████████43%
Procedural████████████████████20%
Animal Welfare███████████11%
Public Engagement████4%
Zoning████4%
Water And Wastewater Management████4%
Planning And Zoning████4%
Affordable Housing███3%
Public Works██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting Summary – June 12, 2024

The Harrisonburg Planning Commission met on Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 409 South Main Street, and adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Four members were present: Chair Brent Finnegan, Vice Chair Adriel Byrd, Heja Alsindi, and Kate Nardi. Absent were Valerie Washington, Richard Baugh, and Vice Mayor Laura Dent. The commission approved minutes, recommended several items to City Council for July 9, 2024, tabled the urban honeybee ordinance, and acted on three 50 Baxter Drive requests.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes from the May 8, 2024 Planning Commission meeting were approved 4-0.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Amy Washington, an adjacent property owner, called in about 448 Kelley Street. She expressed concern that allowing the porch/rezoning could set a precedent that changes the neighborhood's look if others seek similar changes.
  • Dorn Peterson, a beekeeper from 1822 Smithland Road, spoke in favor of urban honeybees. He recommended at least 3 hives on the smallest lots (under 10,000 sq ft), and that hive boxes with 10 or fewer frames used for raising queens not count toward the limit. He explained queen-rearing takes six weeks to two months and supports locally adapted bees.
  • Yanahina Montoya Centeno, the 448 Kelley Street applicant, testified through interpreter Andrew Klausen that she wanted to build a regular porch and conform to the law.
  • AK Koyee, representative for the 50 Baxter Drive applicants, described the proposed dietary supplement facility as an FDA-certified, GMP-regulated operation similar to a 'glorified kitchen' with minimal noise, no noxious fumes, about two or three employees per shift, and small product shipments. He said the business would be new and would not have a retail storefront.

Discussion Items

  • 448 Kelley Street Rezoning (4.a): Staff reviewed a request to rezone a +/-9,171 sq ft parcel from R-2 Residential District to R-8C Small Lot Residential District Conditional. The applicant offered a proffer setting the minimum front setback along Kelley Street at 20 feet; R-8 would otherwise allow 10 feet, while R-2 requires 30 feet. Staff found no major adverse effects and said no traffic impact analysis was required. After discussion about the 20-foot proffer and potential precedent, the commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval.
  • Urban Honeybee Zoning Amendments (4.b): Staff proposed new definitions and Article FF to allow beekeeping as an accessory use on single-family detached dwellings and nonconforming agricultural properties. The proposal included a beehive limit table (e.g., 2 hives on properties of 10,000 sq ft or less), flyway barrier requirements, an annual permit modeled on backyard chicken permits, and a $25 renewal fee. Staff recommended approval. Following Dorn Peterson's testimony, commissioners discussed tabling to refine language. The commission voted 4-0 to table the amendments; staff was directed to consider increasing the smallest-lot limit to 3 or 4 hives, clarify subsection (b) on temporary swarm housing, and add language exempting queen-rearing hives with 10 or fewer frames.
  • Private Refuse Collection Amendments (4.c): Staff proposed replacing accessory-building location rules for dumpsters/trash compactors with a new Section 10-3-110(h), requiring designated collection points not in yards adjoining developed public streets, at least 5 feet from non-street property lines (except B-1 district), and no closer than 20 feet from street property lines on B-1 parcels without principal buildings. Screening would require opaque fencing/walls at least as tall as the containers, a closable gate with up to 6-inch bottom clearance, and no longer allow plant materials as the sole screen. The commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval.
  • 50 Baxter Drive Manufacturing SUP (4.d): The applicant requested a special use permit for manufacturing, processing, and assembly on a +/-0.52-acre portion of a +/-1.14-acre B-2 site, for a dietary supplement production facility. Staff recommended conditions: use limited to dietary supplement manufacturing or substantially similar operations; no more than 6,000 sq ft gross floor area; and possible recall if the use becomes a nuisance. The Zoning Ordinance already limits employees to no more than 15 per shift; the applicant stated they plan two or three. The commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval.
  • 50 Baxter Drive Multifamily SUP (4.e): The applicant requested a special use permit for multiple-family dwellings on a +/-0.65-acre portion. The development plan showed a two-story building with 18 one-bedroom units (about 600 sq ft each) and 36 parking spaces, with a shared access easement across Lot 1. Staff recommended a condition allowing between 18 and 36 parking spaces. The commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval.
  • 50 Baxter Drive Preliminary Plat with Variance (5.a): The applicant requested approval to subdivide the site into two lots and a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 10-2-42(c) because Lot 2 would not have public street frontage; access would be through Tasha Circle, a private street covered by a street maintenance agreement. Staff supported the variance and recommended approval; the commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval, including an extension from 12 to 24 months for the SUPs.
  • Decoven Farms Water Service (5.b): Staff reviewed a request for the City to provide water service from existing city lines to a dairy farm on property at 5262 & 5304 Rawley Pike in Rockingham County, about 3.25 miles west of the city limits. The Department of Public Utilities recommended approval, and no land-use concerns were identified. The commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval. Note: the minutes contain an apparent contradiction—they first say the motion passed 4-0 and will move to City Council, then later say the same motion failed despite a 4-0 roll call; the transcript indicates the request was approved and forwarded.

Key Outcomes

  • Recommended approval to City Council on July 9, 2024, for the 448 Kelley Street rezoning, private refuse collection amendments, both 50 Baxter Drive special use permits, the 50 Baxter Drive preliminary plat variance, and the Decoven Farms water service request.
  • Tabled the urban honeybee ordinance amendments 4-0, with staff to return revised language addressing public testimony and commissioner concerns.
  • City Council actions from June 11, 2024, were reported: approvals included the 979 Roberts Court rezoning/master plan amendment, 1552 South High Street special use permit, Cobblers Valley preliminary plat, and Zephyr Hill preliminary plat; tobacco/smoke/vape shop amendments were approved, while skilled games regulations were tabled after the Governor vetoed a legalization bill.

Reports

  • Rockingham County Planning Commission liaison report: a 5-acre rezoning from A-2 to B-1 near the fairgrounds was recommended 4-0; a Massanutten Village Master Plan amendment designating 7.5 acres as Area A was recommended 5-0; and an amendment on poultry operation supplemental standards was denied 5-0.
  • Board of Zoning Appeals: did not meet.
  • Planning Commission annual report was accepted by City Council.

Other Matters / Next Steps

  • A Planning Commission work session for the Zoning Ordinance update was scheduled for Thursday, July 25, 5:00–7:00 p.m.; commissioners were asked to submit agenda ideas by June 30, 2024.
  • Next month's agenda is expected to have two or three items, so only one July Planning Commission meeting is planned.

Meeting Transcript

Should be, yeah. Okay. All right. I will um call this meeting of the Harrisonburg Planning Commission to order for Wednesday, June 12th. Um we do have a quorum with four of uh with four members present. Um we are expecting a fifth at some point. Um do we have any motions or corrections for last month's minutes? I'd like a motion to approve um May 8th, 2024 minutes. Okay, we have a motion. Uh do you have okay we just we're just looking for a second? Sorry. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve uh last month's minutes. Uh all in favor of approving last month's minutes as uh presented in the packets, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Any abstentions? Okay. We now move on to item 4A uh to consider a request to rezone 448 Kelly Street. Good evening. Um good evening. The applicant um for this property is requesting to rezone Kelly 448 Kelly Street from R2 to R8C. Um the property is currently zoned R2 and is designated as neighborhood residential in the comprehensive plan. And then here is an aerial of the site. The applicant is requesting to rezone um this parcel from R2 to R8C. Um in the report, the applicant explains that they want to rezone the property to be able to add a porch to the front of the home. The required front yard setback in the R2 district, which is what it is currently zoned, is a 30-feet setback um which would prohibit the property owner from building onto the front of the home in the way that they wish. The R8 district allows for a 10-foot front yard setback in the applicant with this applicant's submitted proffer. This would restrict the front yard setback to 20 feet instead of the 10 in the R8 district, which would provide flexibility for the applicant to build on the front of their property. Um structures along Kelly Street have uh varied front yard setbacks. Um staff believes that reducing the front yard setback on this would not be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood with this proper. Staff believes that this request doesn't have any major adverse effects on the surrounding properties isn't can and is consistent with the comprehensive plan of neighborhood residential. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing on this request? Yes. Uh yes. Because I was looking along the entire street. Would 20 feet from as a setback? Would that apply to even those houses that are the closest to the street? I know you're probably gonna look into it, but this setback, this proper would only be for this. I know it's only for this property, but I'm going. This is a rezoning to an R8. Yes. And these these tend to prop up more when people hear, oh, I can actually add on a porch and they start doing more of them. And I'm just thinking about the future of that neighborhood. Is 20 feet reasonable distance as a setback. As opposed to if if that wasn't added as a proffer, you said it would be 10. Yes.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com