Summary of Proceedings
Harrisonburg Planning Commission Work Session on Zoning Ordinance Update – August 24, 2026
The Harrisonburg Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, August 24, 2026, at 6:00 PM in City Hall Room 011 to continue their Zoning Ordinance Update Project. The meeting focused on refining zoning district names and intent statements, and reviewing draft provisions for off-street parking, landscaping, and related standards. Commissioners participated remotely and in person; public comment was not accepted. The meeting adjourned at 7:48 PM.
Discussion Items
3.a. Brief Reflections on Prior Work Session (10-15 minutes)
Staff offered an opportunity for commissioners to raise questions about prior sessions, including the zoning map. No additional questions or comments were raised.
3.b. Review Zoning District Names and Intent Statements
- Staff presented proposed names ("urban," "traditional," "suburban") to replace the current R-1, R-2, R-3 numeric system, aiming to better communicate neighborhood character along a continuum.
- Commissioners expressed concern that "suburban" may evoke suburban sprawl, and that density labels (low, medium, high) could create perceptions about property values or desirability.
- Alternatives discussed included "low medium high neighborhood," "core urban," "old town," "transitional," and density-based names.
- Concerns were raised that "traditional" carries cultural, historic, and planning connotations that may not clearly communicate district characteristics.
- Commissioners generally agreed that the proposed intent statements improve upon existing numeric labels, but further consideration of district names is warranted.
- Staff requested that commissioners provide additional name suggestions and feedback by September 7, 2026, to allow compilation for a future work-session discussion.
3.c. Review portions of draft Zoning Ordinance text (Parking and Landscaping)
- Staff reviewed draft provisions for off-street parking, shared parking, vehicle stacking, residential driveways, parking-lot landscaping, and parking location. The objective is to make modest updates while reserving larger policy changes for a later phase.
- Parking requirements will align with proposed zoning ordinance use tables, using measurable features (e.g., floor area, beds, dwelling units) rather than operational factors (e.g., employee counts).
- Restaurant parking: reduced from 1 space per 100 sq ft to 1 space per 250 sq ft, to improve flexibility for reuse of existing commercial buildings.
- Residential parking: 1 space per dwelling unit, except in the R-A C and R-GC districts (covering most student housing), where 0.85 spaces per bedroom is proposed. Staff stated this would create a small reduction for four-bedroom units while eliminating the current differential that may discourage one- and two-bedroom units.
- Institutional care: 1 space per 3 beds, consistent with current nursing-home standard. A commissioner questioned whether some facilities (e.g., medical offices) might have parking demand not primarily related to beds; staff said such uses may need evaluation under an office-related category.
- Churches: commissioners noted declining attendance but increased community center use, and that growing churches typically seek more than minimum parking. Staff is comfortable with the simplified approach.
- Shared parking: the current provision in Section 10-3-26(b) has been used only once. The draft proposes removing the 10-year expiration so recorded agreements remain until formally terminated.
- Retail parking: currently decreases from 1 per 200 sq ft to 1 per 250 sq ft after 10,000 sq ft of gross floor area. Commissioners discussed incentives to repurpose excess parking from older shopping centers into development.
- A commissioner asked about exemptions or flexibility from parking minimums for neighborhood commercial development near residential areas where customers may walk or bike. Staff will examine the concept.
- Private K-12 schools: proposed as special exception; colleges/universities as permitted in mixed-use and commercial districts. Commissioners generally expressed comfort with addressing these through special exception or institutional overlay rather than a fixed parking metric.
- Public schools: commissioners generally expressed comfort with no minimum parking requirement.
- Vehicle stacking for drive-throughs: proposed to move from Design and Construction Standards Manual into zoning ordinance, with slight differences. Staff will evaluate other localities' enforceable approaches for managing excessive queueing.
- Parking minimums purpose: commissioners discussed public concerns about spillover into residential areas, on-street parking conflicts, and downtown parking perceptions. Staff asked for direction on whether reductions go too far.
- Compact parking: current allowance of 25% compact spaces retained; staff can examine adjustments if interested.
- Residential driveway width: proposed maximum of 12 ft at the lot line for lots ≤40 ft wide, and 30% of lot width or 24 ft for wider lots. The limitation aims to reduce curb cuts and pedestrian conflict points.
- Parking lot landscaping: proposed 15% landscaping, with interior islands required for larger lots. Staff will evaluate application to parking garages and integrated structures (e.g., "Texas donut").
- Parking location: in neighborhood commercial districts, the draft proposes limiting parking between a building and a public street. Commissioners discussed broader application outside downtown.
Key Outcomes
- Commissioner Alsindi’s remote participation from Erbil, Iraq was unanimously approved.
- Commissioners will provide additional feedback and suggested names for proposed neighborhood zoning districts by September 7, 2026.
- Staff will continue meeting with City departments to review draft content.
- The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2026; the next work session is scheduled for September 15, 2026.
- Staff is planning at least two public open houses in late September to mid-October 2026; dates not yet established.
Meeting Transcript
Planning commission. Relative to quorum, we have four members in the room right now. So I guess quorum. Vice Chair Porter and Councilmember Deb, do we I'm expecting Councilmember Deb to join. Porter, Shannon said he wasn't going to be able to make it. So we hope to have Councilmember Tim here shortly. But uh Commissioner Al Cindy is willing to participate not just virtually, but virtually from a set of records that's hardest to beat. He's gonna stand for a good while furthest away from us physically when he's doing this. Um but uh he's soon he's he's not logged in yet. So uh but if we could take a motion to make the motion from this, yeah. Okay, so um in affordance with the planning commission's adopt a policy for remote participation. Commissioner Al Sidney has requested to participate remotely in this meeting during travel that prevents his physical attendance. He will participate remotely from a private location in Air Beal, Iraq, which is not open to the public. Quorum of the planning commission is physically assembled at this meeting location, and arrangements have been made for the voice of Commissioner Al Cindy to be heard by all person as a primary location. So I'll entertain a motion to allow Commissioner Al Cindy to participate. Moved by Commissioner Kettler, seconded by Commissioner Chesi or any discussion. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. All right, so then we can physically make the uh connections. Um might not be bad to know just for the record at that point, but that nonetheless we will allow him to seamlessly join the meeting as much as classical. Well, I'm first, I'm sure it's a record, but my assertion is that it's going to stand for a good one. But uh who knows. All right, which gets us to our first item under new business uh reflections on prior work session. And we'll note for the record that uh commissioner council member Den is just joined us. Staff gonna leave us in this, or you're just gonna let us uh or was come over whatever something went around. If you have anything on your mind, um don't have any updates. Last time I talked about was there any map I shared to see some of that new questions or anything from the last two meetings you want to discuss? You're good. Well, these things tend to be a little unstructured anyway, so I'm sure if anybody feels a brain need to bring up something uh at some point later, we'll find a way to retain town. So with that, we officially at least move on to item 3b, review zoning district names and intent statements. Yes, so at our last meeting, um someone requested having all the intent statements in one location. And I figured it was a good time to address district names. Um over the course of a number of meetings, it became clear that even amongst staff who regularly read them that the previous names were not sufficiently meaningful for anyone to know how to distinguish them and make it being used in place of one another. Um, and so we went searching for alternatives and a real set of all commissioner Alcindy. Commissioner Al Cindy, can you hear us? Yeah, hi, hello. Yes, I can hear you. All right, fantastic. Thank you. Perfect. Yeah, welcome to welcome Commissioner Al Cindy. Very glad you could join us. And just to let you know at this point, the first their business item on the agenda, there really wasn't anybody who was uh necessarily wanted to have any reflections on private work session. Uh was there anything in particular you wanted to do at that point? Uh no, no, so no, thank you. I'm fine. Okay. Then just letting you know that we were just starting on item three B for reviewing zoning district names and intent statements, and with that, I'll be quiet. Let uh Russ continue talking. Sure, absolutely.
SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com