The Harrisonburg Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. The meeting lasted approximately 1 hour and 42 minutes, adjourning at 7:42 PM. Five commissioners were present (Baugh, Porter, Dent, Kettler, Seitz), with two absent (Alsindi, Jezior). The commission considered three public hearing items, initiated two zoning ordinance amendments, and clarified two prior actions from its March 11, 2026 meeting.
In that case, I will call to order the April 8, 2026 meeting, the Harrisonburg Planning Commission. I'll note note for the record that Commissioners Al Cindy and Jezi were not with us this evening. The other five are present, and that we do have a quorum. So with that, next item is review and approval of minutes from the March 11 meeting. And I know we got the re the note from staff of a requested correction to the uh original set that we were given. Yeah, if you would uh give me a moment for the record and for the public to hear uh uh if you recall from our March 11th meeting, there was a resident who called and the phone call was difficult to understand. Um following the meeting, uh Robert and Mary Case of eight sorry two eighty-six Paul Street contacted staff stating that they were callers and are opposed to the rezoning request. Uh their email has been accepted in the record as a written public comment that has been received. And so um I had provided you all with draft a draft statement that we would like to include in the minutes. Right. Does that statement need to be read or just incorporated in? Uh I guess um you have to, as we just want to, as long as it's clear that we're we're adopting it. Yeah, yeah. Uh motion to approve minutes uh with the um amendment presented by staff. Right. Okay. Second. Moved by Commissioner Kettler, seconded by Vice Chair Porter. Uh any additional discussion. All those in favor of approval of the minutes of the March 11 meeting say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right, minute stand approved. Gets us to new business, first public hearing item four A, consider request for special use permit at 140 East Wolf Street. Good evening. I'm Nirma Soffle, uh, planner, community development. So the applicant is requesting a special use permit per section ten three eighty-five subsection one to allow manufacturing processing and assembly operations, provided that provided the use does not employ more than 15 persons on the premises in a single shift, and that all storage activities are conducted within a building in the B-1 central business district. The plus or minus 16,600 square foot property is addressed as 140 East Wolf Street and identified as tax map number 34 and 7. The comprehensive plan designates this area as mixed use, which is intended to combine residential and non-residential uses in neighborhoods. Uh mixed use designation. The site was formerly known as Gamer Oasis. It shares a wall with the Friendly City Food Co-op and the Post Office. It's adjacent to Klein's Dairy Bar and El Bas Elfano Bakery. And across East Wolf is a church and across East Rock Street behind it is the colonnade, a mixed-use building. So on August eighth, twenty twenty-five, the applicant submitted a building alteration permit requests for interior modifications and a change of use from retail to a tavern and arcade. The applicant describes in their letter that the 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. Beer produced there would be kegged, and then that beer would be brought to 140 East Wolf Street to be canned and packaged. Some of the canned beer would be served and sold on site, and some would return to the other facility 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. If approved, the scale of operations could change over time, or the property could be sold in 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. Which was not evaluated for this request. Therefore, staff recommends the following condition. The canning bottling and packaging operations shall be limited to the canning line area as depicted on the concept plan. The special use permit 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 this with the suggested condition. Any questions? This probably isn't our purview, but how does this work with the ABC licenses? I mean, does the ABC license that they have for the original Wall Street location extended this?