Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting – September 11, 2024
Harrisonburg Planning Commission Meeting – September 11, 2024
The Harrisonburg Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Wednesday, September 11, 2024, at 6:00 PM in City Council Chambers. The commission considered three rezoning requests, including two infill housing proposals and a master plan amendment from Eastern Mennonite University, and discussed revisions to the Public Schools section of staff memoranda. All three public hearing items were recommended for approval to City Council.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes from August 14, 2024: Approved on a 6-0 vote (Vice Mayor Dent abstained).
Public Comments & Testimony
- 4a. Myrtle Street Rezoning (439 & 445 Myrtle Street):
- Kathy Whitten (560 South Mason Street): Opposed the rezoning, stating it would reduce backyards, block sunlight, increase rent, and remove a mature maple tree. She argued the current $925/month rent is affordable and that the development benefits only the owner.
- Ritchie Vaughan (applicant/owner): Spoke in favor, explaining the goal is to create more small lots as intended by the new zoning district. He confirmed the new houses would be two-story, farmhouse-style, around 1,300 sq ft, and that his current tenants have been informed.
- Gil Colman (applicant's representative): Responded that the rear yard is currently an unused open field and that the two new homes would provide needed rental housing.
- 4b. North Dogwood Drive Rezoning (715 North Dogwood Drive):
- Lewis Bagwell (645 North Dogwood Drive): Opposed, citing increased traffic, loss of the bike path safety, and negative impact on the neighborhood.
- Kemper Dadisman (360 Hartman Drive): Opposed, concerned about narrow streets, parking, traffic on Hartman Drive, stormwater runoff, and safety for children.
- Jeffrey Sigworth (425 Hartman Drive): Opposed, noting the steep grade makes the driveway design dangerous for fire trucks and cars, and rainfall could cause soil liquefaction.
- Eugene Pence (399 Hartman Drive): Opposed, citing existing traffic issues at stop signs and flood risks on Waterman Drive.
- Ben Allison (667 Virginia Avenue): Concerned about cumulative traffic from the approved Sunshine Apartments and this proposal.
- Todd Ray (2322 Alston Circle): Asked about bike/pedestrian connectivity from the existing shared-use path to Waterman Drive.
- Ina Garouk (associate broker): Noted the need for housing and suggested neighbors offer alternatives.
- Carol Kingman (345 North Dogwood Drive): Suggested an entrance on Waterman Drive instead of the steep Third Street drop.
- Gil Colman (applicant's representative): Responded that the steep grade and fire department access requirements forced the long driveway; that Waterman Drive access is not possible because the applicant does not own the intervening property; and that stormwater will be mitigated per state regulations.
- 4c. EMU Master Plan Amendment:
- Gene Early (1333 Hillcrest Drive): Asked about Item 4 (open space) and whether EMU has hidden plans to develop the grassy hillside (EMU Hill).
- Gil Colman (applicant's representative): Clarified that the open space designation is not binding; any future change would require a new master plan amendment, and EMU currently has no plans to alter that area.
Discussion Items
- 4a. Myrtle Street Rezoning: Staff presented the request to rezone two parcels from R-2 to R-8C (Small Lot Residential Conditional) with proffers including a 25-foot front setback and a public sidewalk easement. The commission discussed the fit with the neighborhood, infill development, and trade-offs between tree canopy and parking. Vice Chair Byrd expressed support for density to address housing costs, and Vice Mayor Dent noted the proposal fits the neighborhood. Chair Finnegan highlighted the need for citywide tree canopy requirements. The commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval.
- 4b. North Dogwood Drive Rezoning: Staff presented the request to rezone a nearly 1-acre lot from R-1 to R-5C (High Density Residential Conditional) with proffers including occupancy limits, 1.5 parking spaces per unit, a 20-foot landscape buffer, a shared-use path easement, and intersection improvements. The commission debated the challenging topography, the winding driveway, traffic safety, stormwater, and the viability of R-1 development. A motion to deny failed 2-5 (Byrd, Alsindi in favor of denial; Nardi, Baugh, Dent, Finnegan, Washington against). A subsequent motion to approve passed 6-1 (Washington, Alsindi, Nardi, Baugh, Dent, Finnegan in favor; Byrd opposed). The recommendation moves to City Council.
- 4c. EMU Master Plan Amendment: Staff presented the request to amend the Institutional Overlay Master Plan for approximately 94 acres. Key changes include allowing up to 10 feet of additional building height for solar panels/equipment, reducing setbacks to 10 feet at external boundaries (0 feet internal with fire safety conditions), and allowing deviations from parking lot landscaping requirements (relocating plantings to perimeter or within 15 feet). The commission discussed the non-binding nature of the conceptual map, open space, and fire safety. The commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval.
- 7a. Discussion of "Public Schools" Section in Staff Memoranda: Vice Mayor Dent proposed adding a disclaimer to the Public Schools section of staff reports, noting that the student generation estimates come from HCPS and have not been vetted by City staff. She cited a pending Weldon Cooper Center population study and concerns that the numbers are being misused to advocate for a new school. Commissioners discussed the unique relationship with the School Board, the risk of misleading aggregation, and the need to protect staff. Consensus was reached to have staff develop a brief disclaimer for future reports.
Key Outcomes
- Myrtle Street Rezoning (4a): Recommended approval (7-0) to City Council for October 8, 2024.
- North Dogwood Drive Rezoning (4b): Recommended approval (6-1) to City Council for October 8, 2024.
- EMU Master Plan Amendment (4c): Recommended approval (7-0) to City Council for October 8, 2024.
- Public Schools Section (7a): Staff will revise the section to include a disclaimer that student estimates are from HCPS and not reviewed by City staff.
- Next Meeting: October 2024 agenda includes nine items, with five related to Quarry Heights (grouped together).
Meeting Transcript
All in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone abstaining? Okay. The minutes are approved. We have three at them, three items of new business. The first item in 4A is a request to rezone 439 and 445 Myrtle Street. Good evening. So our first request that we are seeing hearing tonight is a rezoning request for two parcels addressed at 439 and 445 Myrtle Street. They're requesting rezone from the R2 district, the residential district to R8C small lot residential district with condition conditional with some proffers. So as you can see here on the property is zoned, R2 on the map on the screen, and is surrounded by other R2 zoned properties. It is located in the neighborhood residential district and is additionally also surrounded by neighborhood residential in on this block and surrounding blocks. And then here is an aerial image of the site. But they are for the first proffer, they are proffering that the new homes along Effringer Street will have a 25-foot setback for the front of the buildings. And then they're additionally proffering that there will be easements dedicated upon subdivision of the future subdivision of the site. On the screen here, where you can see the red high the red line that is drawn on there, it's a representation, it's not exact or to scale my drawing on there. Representing the variable with public sidewalk easement that will extend seven and a half feet from the existing back of curb into the property. The variable meaning that some portions may have from that back of curb already dedicated right away, that is within that seven and a half feet. And so just additionally they would go from there to add to a total of seven and a half feet from that curve. And then this blue line, which is a little hard to see, that is being pointed to right there, is for the temporary construction easement. So the R8 district is intended for a medium to high density residential development and that typically includes which includes single family and do duplex dwellings. When compared to the neighborhood surrounding, if you see the stars here, uh within a about a 300 foot radius of the site, there is a number of lots that are similarly sized to this proposed request. And with this, um staff believes that this rezoning could provide opportunities for some infill development as well as establish and is an establish and a well-established neighborhood. And it's consistent with the comprehensive plan designation of neighborhood residential in this area. Um then staff also with these lots sorry. Staff believes that rezoning these properties or rezoning these properties could provide a proper opportunity for infill development and is in line with comprehensive plan. Um with the conceptual layout that is given, um, it is showing that similar lot sizes could be created with this rezoning. Um with this staff recommends approval of the request. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing about this request? Um my question is about could you go back to that slide? This one? Uh yeah, I guess that yeah, that one uh showing the setback. Can you just go over the 25-foot setback? Does that include that does not include the sidewalk? So it would be from the property line. Um with the easement being dedicated in the as an easement, not as right away. It would be from that existing property line. Okay. I got does my question make sense. Does the sidewalk count as part of the 25 foot setback? A portion of the sidewalk might. So the way you see on the image, and I don't have a scale here, but behind the back of curb, there's several feet of white space before you get to the thick black line that is represented. Can you remove the where what represents the property line? And then there is an orange line. If you look at your packet, the orange line is the proposed public sidewalk easement. So the setback is going to be measured. And so imagine that the sidewalk would be six inches, half a foot in front of so close closer to the street. So the setback would not be measured from the public sidewalk easement, but would be measured from the black solid line where the property line is illustrated.
openpublica.com