AGENDA

PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF WARRENTON

May 16, 2017

7:00 PM

1) Call to order and establishment of a quorum.

2) Approval of Minutes: February 21, 2017

3) Regular Meeting
a) Special Use Permit 2017-01 Popeyes Restaurant with Drive Through Facility. The request,
per Article 3-4.10.3 Permissible Uses by Special Use Permit within the Commercial Zoning District,
is to establish a restaurant with a drive through facility at 286 Broadview Avenue. The parcel is
zoned Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as Re-planned Commercial
on the Future Land Use Plan. The owner is NACR LLC. GPINs 6984-17-1845-000.
b) 2016 Annual Report

4) Comments from the Commission

5) Comments from the Staff

6) Adjourn
 DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF WARRENTON

February 21, 2017

7:00 PM

The regular meeting of the Town of Warrenton Planning Commission (PC) convened on Tuesday,
February 21, 2017 at 7:00 PM in the Warrenton Community Center.

The following members were present: Ms. Susan Helander, Chair; Mr. John Kip, Vice-Chair; Mr. Ali
Zarabi; Ms. Christine Dingus; Mr. Jeremy Downs; Ms. Anna Maas; Mr. Ryan Stewart; Mr. Brett
Hamby, Town Council Liaison; and Mr. Whitson Robinson, Town Attorney. Ms. Brandie Schaeffer,
Director of Planning and Community Development represented staff. Ms. Helander called the meeting
to order at 7:00 PM and a quorum was determined.

Approval of Minutes

The Commission made a decision to defer the approval of the previous months minutes until the next
meeting.

Public Hearing

a. Special Use Permit 2016-06 Chilton House Bed and Breakfast. The request, per Article 3-
4.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, is to convert the existing dwelling at 97 Culpeper Street into a Bed
and Breakfast. The parcel is zoned R-6 (Residential) and the Comprehensive Plan identifies the
property as Low Density Residential on the future land use plan. The property owner is the
Beatrice M. McDonnell Revocable Trust with Co-Trustees Barbara M. Walker, Mary Byrne
McDonnell, and Katherine McDonnell. GPIN: 6984-32-7714-000.

Brandie Schaeffer, Director of Planning and Community Development spoke to the Commission and
said there had been an issue with the mailing notification because the Post Office had shipped certified
mail off site, adding that staff had since met with representatives of the postal service that future
certified mailings would be redirected. Due to that, she said this Public Hearing was held open to give
citizens a chance to comment. She went on to say the location of the proposed bed and breakfast is
along Culpeper Street and adjacent to St. James Episcopal Church. The zoning district is R-6, and the
lot size is just under an acre. The Comprehensive Plan shows this for low-density residential and the
surrounding land uses are a church, residential and vacant. This is permissible by Special Use Permit in
the R-6 district. She presented the Commission with pictures of the house and site. She said the
orientation of the house is unique because it is set back from the road and the front faces the side lot.

Page 1
Ms. Schaeffer said since the last review of the application, additional details on the potential signage
and location had been requested, adding the Applicant had done a mock design and this has been
provided. She stated the Architectural Review Board would review the sign unless it meets
administrative standards. She pointed out the proposed location of the sign on Culpeper Street. She
added points of discussion at the last Public Hearing around business impacts of proposed use,
revenue, jobs and income, potential increase or decrease in the value of adjoining properties, traffic
impact and the role of a Special Use Permit.

Ms. Schaeffer said there was some question about ownership and to be clear, the owner must reside on
site. The role of the sunset clause regarding the sale of the property was discussed, as well as the
existing fence and landscaping, adding there is a desired buffer between the adjacent property, but the
neighbor preferred to have none and to retain the small fence due to the profiles between the two
homes. She said there was considerable discussion about ADA compliance as well as fire and rescue
and these have been addressed in the draft conditions along with the water pressure to make sure the
Applicant is aware of those implications.

Ms. Dingus asked about the five-year administrative review versus a three-year review in the staff
report. Ms. Schaeffer said after meeting with the Applicant and considering conditions, the staff
determined a three-year review was appropriate. Ms. Dingus went on to ask about additional
conditions in the staff report, in particular about events, and if they would be held on the property.
There was a discussion about meetings and if those would be permitted. Ms. Schaeffer said that should
be addressed in the conditions, adding some of the confusion about what constitutes an event may stem
from the Towns Special Event Policy. She said staff did look at special exception conditions of
approval governing other bed and breakfasts that were under a Special Use Permit in Fauquier County
and there were some restrictions on the number of guests and the hours of operation. She noted that the
staff could include restrictions in the conditions on the issue of events.

Mr. Zarabi commented it would have been preferable to have the language clarified by the Applicant
and the Town before this meeting, but we need to apply the most restrictive language and conditions
regarding this application as well as strike events. He asked if the property was converted to
commercial could it still be considered residential. Ms. Schaeffer explained there was a Town Zoning
Ordinance Amendment adopted by the Town to permit bed and breakfasts and inns. Meanwhile other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance state you cannot have events at all. She added there is also an
existing Special Events Policy that was drafted and adopted by the Town Council, administered by the
Town Manager, which expressly excludes bed and breakfasts from any regulation. There are three
provisions that conflict, and with the role of the SUP, the conditions cover everything. Ms. Schaeffer
went on to say regarding the question of whether a residence converted to a bed and breakfast is
considered a residence or is commercial, the Ordinance considers a bed and breakfast to be residential
use and the owner is required to live on the premises. She added that the Building Code also considers
a bed and breakfast to be residential.

Mr. Downs suggested limits on events and number of people. He expressed a concern of burden for the
owner if every event had to be approved. Ms. Schaeffer noted a condition could be added this evening
if the owner present agreed or the staff and Applicant can work out the details prior to Town Council
approval.

Mr. McAuliff, Applicant, thanked Ms. Schaeffer and Mr. Robinson as well as the staff for their work
on the project. He said he was comfortable with the provision of no events permitted for the bed and
breakfast, adding that he understood the concerns about traffic and parking. He said his goal is to

Page 2
operate the business while preserving the historic quality of the building. The building is not designed
for events or meetings. Ms. Dingus expressed concern about pictures on social media on the Chilton
House website that featured photos of wedding events and Mr. McAuliff stated those had been
removed.

The Chair then opened the Public Hearing for public comment.

Ms. Shough of Wilson Street said she moved into the area recently and was impressed by the amount
of history in the Chilton House. She noted she had contacted Mr. McAuliff and asked for a tour and he
obliged. She encouraged people to take a tour of the house. She said it was her opinion that this project
was being approached in a responsible way and it should be supported.

Ms. Hitchcock, daughter of a resident of Culpeper Street, said it was the first time she has attended a
Commission meeting, adding that she had grown up on Culpeper Street and was attending the meeting
on her parents behalf. She said she wanted to go on record as opposing the request, adding she
appreciated the fact that the events had been removed from the application. The Applicants request for
a Special Use Permit specifically states, according to Ms. Hitchcock, that it would enable a revenue
stream to allow the property to be self-sustaining, enabling the family to keep the property in
perpetuity. She said if this is the case, the Applicant should have no objection to imposing a covenant
to say that this Special Use Permit would not transfer if the house were sold. She is also concerned
about the Applicants business plan. It anticipated 949 room nights annually to be occupied. However,
she said she understands the industry standard is 40% occupancy and that is the average for a bed and
breakfast. If the Applicants petition is dependent on the average commercial performance, will the
target price of $200.00 per night be dropped to sustain the occupancy goals? Will the Applicant be
forced to sell the house if the circumstances do not meet that? It is an historic street and people move
here because its a wonderful community. She said she would like to see that maintained. She said she
had a petition of people who lived on Culpeper Street; 12 houses oppose, 1 resident is out of Town, 3
were neutral and 1 was undecided.

Ms. Lora Gookin of Edington Drive in Warrenton said she wanted to speak in support of the
application, adding that she is a pastry chef and owner of a nearby bakery. She said she sees this
project as an addition to businesses that will support one another. A bed and breakfast such as this,
with as few rooms as there are, will not have a major detrimental impact on the Town but will be an
asset. She sees it as low impact. She said it would be nice for people to have a lovely bed and breakfast
in which to stay, its a good fit and it will be a good thing for Warrenton.

Ms. Katie Ott, a resident of Sycamore Street, said she has owned property about six blocks from the
location in Warrenton for twenty-four years. She said she believed the Town was underserved for the
history tours for people who want a walking experience of the Town. She said she hoped the Planning
Commission would support business and approve the venture.

Ms. Christine Fox of Mosby Street said, several years ago a similar application came up where the
property owners at Washington and Culpeper Street requested a rezoning for a tearoom with events. At
that time, the Town Council and the Planning Commission turned down the application. Her parents
from Culpeper Street were not here at that time and she spoke on their behalf, as they had invested
considerable resources to renovate their home. She said that people who invest a lot into a residential
neighborhood want it to remain residential.

Page 3
Ms. Maggie Lovett said it was her first time to speak at a Public Hearing, adding that the Applicants
sincerity about the project came into question with some of the comments at the last hearing. She said
the Applicant has a deep love of the home and said she believed that this project represents the
Applicants desire to preserve his familys home and keep the history alive. She said the Applicant is
constantly willing to share stories of the Chilton House and its rich history and thought she was the
most passionate history lover, but she believes now it is the Applicant. She went on to say a bed and
breakfast would be an asset to the Town by providing lodging within walking distance of the
wonderful shops and restaurants in Town while providing a source of income for preserving and
maintaining a beautiful, old home. She said that by granting approval to the Applicant for going
forward with the bed and breakfast, it would mark the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the
house and allow the Applicant to make his own history in the Town of Warrenton.

Mr. Herbert Stotler, a resident of Culpeper Street, requested that it would be stated in the conditions
that no events would be held at the residence. He also requested that the sign be somewhat smaller than
the one proposed.

Ms. Kelly Ann Richardson addressed the Commission and said she was speaking for the Old Town
Merchants Group. She said as a group they meet monthly and this group, as a whole, is supportive of
the Chilton House being approved as a bed and breakfast because it will benefit the Town of
Warrenton. She added that Culpeper Street is a lovely street but the bed and breakfast would benefit
the entire Town.

Mr. Dan McLinden, a resident of Blue Ridge Street spoke said he wished to speak in support of the
bed and breakfast, adding that he and his wife were photography business owners in the Town of
Warrenton. He said the bed and breakfast would be asset to the Town in part because of the beauty of
the architecture, the beauty of Old Town and Warrenton is an ideal spot for people from the metro area
to come and elope, have their wedding and have everything here within walking distance.

Mr. Ken Alm of Culpeper Street said he was a County Planning Commissioner and as a planner, he
looks at the whole picture. He stated businesses on Main Street want anything that will add to their
business. At the same time, the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes certain residential areas and certain
historic areas like Culpeper, Winchester Street, and Falmouth Streets. He said a bed and breakfast in
itself does not have much impact, but when one adds events, that has more impact and his concern is
creep of uses and you may end up with several bed and breakfasts along Culpeper Street or other
historic streets.

Ms. Amy Trace, a resident of Culpeper Street, said she is very pleased with the idea of no events at this
house. She said the house is right across the street from hers and the idea of a wedding there every
weekend is not pleasant. She said she understands those who are in favor of the bed and breakfast are
business owners and can understand the idea of potential economic benefit. She said she loves the
Town of Warrenton, wants it to prosper but she added she is concerned about encroachment of uses.

Mr. Chris Ward of Culpeper Street said he lives across from Chilton House and said he is not against
the bed and breakfast, looks forward to seeing the first one in Warrenton and hopes to see several bed
and breakfasts in the Town in the future. He said his concern was bed and breakfasts springing up
organically instead of a more planned approach.

Mr. McAuliff, Applicant, said he wished to speak in response to the comments made. He said he
intended to have the proposed sign for the B&B smaller than originally proposed, and as far as the

Page 4
possible sale of the house in the future, he said his family would do their utmost not to sell the property
because their wish was to keep it in the family. He spoke briefly about average occupancy rates for
B&Bs and thanked everyone who attended to speak on the matter.

Ms. Helander closed the Public Hearing regarding Chilton House Bed and Breakfast at 7:57 PM.

Ms. Schaeffer said the Town Attorney drafted a condition for consideration. The property identified
will not have any events open to the public or for the exchange of funds except for the following: a)
Ten invited guests or fewer by the owner of the property or any quests staying on the premises, b) any
event planned in advance with not less than 60 days notice to the Town Manager and written plan
submitted with said notice with approval to be granted at the sole discretion of the Town Manager or
his designee, c) there shall not be any events permitted for any more than 30 people at any time.

Mr. Kip asked why the condition could not say no events.

Ms. Schaeffer said essentially because the Ordinance is silent on the definition of what an event is and
she added she didnt have anything in the code to reference.

Whit Robinson, Town Attorney, said he understood Ms. Schaeffers concern, if the homeowner were
to invite six friends for dinner, is that prohibited because it is considered an event.

Mr. Kip then asked, if this was approved what is the possibility that the property does not transfer?

Mr. Robinson said he understood that the Applicant and the neighbors wish that this would be a
condition; however, the entitlement goes with the land, not the homeowner.

Ms. Schaeffer responded to Mr. Kips comment and said, Zoning Ordinances are inherently behind the
times and they are always trying to catch up with new definitions. She said this is a new Ordinance and
this is the first application under the new Ordinance. She said as the Zoning Administrator it was her
job to determine what a definition of an event is, and she had made it clear to the Applicant that an
event involves an exchange of money for something open to the public. She stated she understood
citizens are concerned, and added she believed picking a number at times is the best way to make
things clear.

Mr. Downs made a motion to approve Special Use Permit 2016-06, per the conditions dated February
21, 2017, plus an amended condition on events, pending a definition by the Town Attorney.

Ms. Dingus seconded the motion.

Mr. Ryan Stewart clarified that the motion includes a condition for no events, pending a definition as a
stipulation.

The motion passed with a majority vote:

4-Approve (Mr. Downs, Mr. Steward, Ms. Dingus, and Ms. Helander)
2-Deny (Mr. Kip and Mr. Zarabi)
1-Abstain (Ms. Maas)

Page 5
 Zoning Map Amendment 2016-01- Walker Drive Planned Unit Development Rezoning. The
Applicant is proposing to rezone multiple parcels along the southeast portion of Walker Drive
including parcels bounded by East Lee Street to the south, Walker Drive to the west, US 15/17/29
to the east, and Academy Hill Road to the north. The request is to rezone these parcels from
Industrial (I) to Industrial Planned Unit Development (I-PUD) overlay district, allowing for a
mixed-use development. The proposal for the site (Land Bays A E, plus the Existing Land Bay)
comprises approximately 31.3804 acres of primarily undeveloped land, two existing buildings, and
one by-right building currently under construction. The proposed square footages include a request
for the Industrial and commercial uses to vary by 10% for each land bay, yet not exceed the
proposed total square footage for the overall project.

The rezoning request includes proffers, waiver requests, a Master Development Plan, and Design
Guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as Light Industrial in the Future Land Use
Map. Light Industrial Uses in the Comprehensive Plan are described as flex Industrial uses and
wholesale commercial uses, with limited office uses, with densities not to exceed a floor area ratio
(FAR) of 0.35 on a single site. The maximum allowable density under the proposed I-PUD
rezoning is 0.60 FAR.

Ms. Brandie Schaeffer spoke to the Planning Commission about the project history and noted June 30,
2016 was the official acceptance of the application. She said meetings and Work Sessions have been
held regarding the proposed project, with three formal Planning Commission Work Sessions.

She said the application is to rezone multiple properties to I-PUD. The current zoning is Industrial. She
said it was important to understand that this Commission has not dealt with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to
date, none of the other zoning sections deal with FAR, and so many of the questions around this
rezoning and what it means is a change in FAR from .3 to .6. FAR is best defined in how the building
deals with the total area of the site. She said an example of .5 FAR is a one-story building that covers
half of the parcel or a two-story building that covers 25%. This is how FAR is calculated and this
application is upping the FAR from .3 to .6.

She presented the Commission photos of the site and reviewed where it is located. The Master
Development Plan requested landscaping buffers to insure protection. There is a ten-foot landscape
buffer along 29 and 30 feet along Lee and Walker. The Transportation Impact Analysis is triggering
signal improvements at East Lee and Walker along with the 29 bypass, site entrance A for a
roundabout, and turn lane improvements, exclusive right turn lane shared through left turn lane with
the entrance, and a hundred foot turn lane along Walker Drive.

Ms. Schaeffer told the Commission members in the Design Guidelines there are pictures that depict
what detail would come with the new proposed buildings as clarification had been requested. She said
at the January 24th Work Session, some of the feedback that came out of that was consideration of Site
A as a roundabout. The Applicant performed a Roundabout Study, showing the roundabout met the
basic evaluation as being feasible. Ms. Schaeffer said there are not additional Design Guidelines;
however, there are details on the concrete masonry units and the window treatments. She said there is
enhanced landscaping, especially at the gateway entrance to the Town of Warrenton. The Planning
Commission added the additional buffers and made them wider in width. The Planning Commission
requested provision for noise for the dumpsters and the Applicant did proffer hours for pick up with
noise mitigation.

Page 6
Ms. Schaeffer said these are some of the knowns. Plain or painted concrete masonry units shall not
be used. Refuse shall be screened and there shall not be any cleaning or pick up between 10 PM and 6
AM. There will be a public gathering area of 20,000 square feet. The project shall meet the Zoning
Ordinance lighting requirements. There will be a five-foot max concrete sidewalk. The project will be
served by Town Water and Sewer. The Applicant shall provide a Post Zoning Master Plan, which is an
addition. She said the site would have a 30-foot landscape easement along Walker Drive from East Lee
Street to Hidden Creek and along East Lee Street from U.S. 29 to Walker Drive. There shall be a
maximum of 116 multi-family dwelling units, although the size, affordability or target market of these
units is unknown. As proffered, the Applicant will construct not less than 75,000 square feet of new
non-residential gross floor area prior to issuance of the 77th building permit. This was intended to
reference the condominiums, but does not specifically state.

A waiver is requested for the commercial and industrial land use mix, 10% variation by land bay. This
requirement defines land uses by percentage allowed across the entire site, however, the waiver does
not specify what percentage will be requested that results in a number of possibilities. She said when
staff is considering waivers; we like to understand the hardship or the need for the waiver instead of
just granting waivers. The Applicant is also requesting a waiver for a comprehensive sign package to
be administratively approved, however, the comprehensive sign package has not been provided.

Ms. Schaeffer said considerable time has been spent on the overall transportation issues with two Work
Sessions focused on transportation. The main considerations were when improvements were warranted
such as the roundabout and in response to the Planning Commission requesting the Applicant meet
with VDOT to study the roundabout feasibility and that was completed and submitted. The southbound
turn lane along Walker Drive into the development was identified as required to be provided for safety,
but it is not proffered or part of the transportation improvements. A pedestrian analysis was agreed to
by the Applicant in the scoping meeting, but was never provided. She said the development is a quarter
mile from the core of Main Street and without an analysis; it is unclear how pedestrians will get from
the development to adjacent neighborhoods or Old Town. She said staff does not have any conceptual
types for widths of sidewalks for this project and the impact for pedestrians, so staff cannot comment
on the link or type of sidewalks and the safety of pedestrians, and staff remains concerned about the
overall impact of the adjacent subdivision and formal connections between those of the new
development.

Ms. Schaeffer said this brings the presentation to the staff recommendation. To this point, staff has
worked with the Applicant to provide as much certainty to the final product as possible. The Applicant
has proffered a Post-Zoning Master Development Plan that will need to comply with the zoning as well
as the proffers prior to site plan submission, providing an opportunity for staff to work through the
specific details of the layout with the Applicant, with final approval required from the Town Council.
She said the staff recognizes that at this stage of development of the approval process, this application
is more speculative in nature, making the approval or disapproval of this application more of a policy
decision best left to the Towns Planning Commission and the Town Council.

Ms. Dingus asked if the Town had received any economic information or market analysis.

Ms. Schaeffer said an economic and fiscal analysis was submitted, and those outline the impact of the
project on our tax base and revenue over time. What Ms. Dingus is referring to is a market analysis,
which is an outline of the impact of the project on our tax base and revenue over time. State law makes
it clear the Town can require economic and fiscal analysis, but not market analysis because that can
compromise the competitive advantage of the applicant.

Page 7
Mr. Stewart said one of the issues that make this project difficult to analyze is that the proposed
number of dwelling units is given, but not a number of residents the project would add. Ms. Schaeffer
said this region is currently being analyzed as far as housing, adding Fauquier County had recently
completed a housing study undertaken by National Realtors and independently done by George Mason
University, which is the only data available. She said counties had relied heavily on demographic
information from Weldon Cooper, but last year the state removed towns and cities from their analysis
leaving us unable to extrapolate data as we have in the past. We are left with nothing to rely on other
than the U.S. Census that does not work for us either. Ms. Harris is working on some solutions and
grants to help us obtain population information.

Mr. Kip expressed concern that the terminology for this project in the application goes between
residential, apartments and condominiums. He asked if the Town knew what the project was going to
be. Ms. Schaeffer said the multi-family residential is 76 apartment units and multi-family residential is
40 condominium units in Land Bay E. Mr. Kip asked if these would be rentals, which Ms. Schaeffer
confirmed and verified with Ms. Pfeiffer.

Mr. Zarabi asked for clarification about metering at the units and how metering changes the usage and
need for addressing sewer issues. Ms. Schaeffer said she relies on the Director of Public Works, Mr.
Edward Tuckers decisions regarding water and sewer predictability and capacity based on averages.
She described her understanding of how Mr. Tucker performs predictability. Mr. Zarabi said there is
supplemental information from a concerned citizen of the community regarding the projected waste
water level and it is a serious enough issue that there should be a discussion about the cost to mitigate
I&I, in particular with this application.

Mr. John Foote, representing the Applicant, spoke to the Commission. He summarized the history of
the application, the status of it and the proposed changes that have been made for the project. He said
he and his client obviously desired to come to a successful conclusion of this process. Mr. Foote spoke
about the changes requested by the Commission and summarized the changes that were made
accordingly. He said in respect to the comprehensive sign package for the project, that is typically
submitted in the site plan stage, not during the zoning process and that is why there is no sign package.
He said he has never done jurisdictional wetland delineation at the zoning stage that is not done until
the site plan, and added what they believe, based upon review of the 2008 study, is that there are no
wetlands involved with this property. We do not believe there is necessity for a dedicated left turn. In
closing, Mr. Foote said regarding the economic impact, he did not believe anyone would disagree with
the fundamental proposition that the project would be fiscally positive for the Town.

Ms. Helander, Chair, opened the Public Hearing on the Walker Drive Industrial Planned Unit
Development Rezoning at 9:00 PM.

Ms. Helen Worst, a resident of Falmouth Street, said she believed the Town was giving up Industrial
land to residential use, adding there did not seem to be a plan for jobs in the community. She said she
has concerns about the 116 homes, the impact on our schools as well as the degrading infrastructure, in
particular the sewage system. People of Falmouth Street have experienced the degrading sewage
system as many homes on the left-hand side have experienced problems. She added many have
concerns about the capacity of the sewer system. She urged Commission members to consider the
future and impacts on infrastructure making sure we are able to support growth by providing local jobs
instead of having traveling to D.C. for work. She added her appreciation for Commission members
dedication to the community.

Page 8
Ms. Gayle Hinton, of Movern Lane, said her main concern with the application is the increase of
traffic. She understood the 4,000 vehicle trips per day would increase to 6,350 trips per day with this
development.

Ms. Julie Bolthouse, Fauquier Field Officer with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC)
addressed the Commission and thanked them for the opportunity to speak. She said the PEC usually
does not get involved with Town projects, but they have been following this application because the
proposal is so large and potentially creating a new retail hub increasing traffic and new traffic patterns.
Finally, because this project has the potential for providing amenities for members of the community
including possibly a bowling alley and/or movie theater, the PEC supports those items.

Ms. Bolthouse went on to say the Applicant is asking for a rezoning from Industrial to Industrial
Planned Unit Development. She said she is concerned the Town would be making a large gamble on
the application because if the market is good The Town may get the entertainment and the retail or a
bowling alley in the next five years, and if its not, the Town might get 76 multi-family units. She said
its difficult to say because the application has very little detail and hardly any commitment and added
the Design Guidelines are very vague. The Post Zoning Master Plan is ministerial that means if it
meets the Zoning and the Proffers that have been approved, then the Town has to approve it. The PEC
asks the Planning Commission to either recommend denial or continue to work with the Applicant to
develop a proffered Master Development Plan including a phasing plan that puts a large portion of the
commercial development first rather than the 76 multi-family units that in the end may be all the Town
gets.

Mr. Paul Stickler, a Fauquier County for seventeen years, said that might not be long compared to
many residents. He said he has seen many changes in those 17 years and most have been positive,
adding when he first moved to Fauquier everyone had to drive to Manassas to shop, etc. He said that is
why he sees this project to be good for the community.

Ms. Patricia Tucker, a resident of Falmouth Street since 1980, expressed concerns about the integrity
of the Towns sewer system because of a catastrophic sewer system failure in April of 2015. She said it
affected her home and it took time working with the Towns insurance company in order to get her
home restored. She is concerned it would happen again and thinks the Town should upgrade what it
has before going forward with an additional development.

Mr. Ken Henson of Falmouth Street expressed his concern with the application impacts of increased
traffic and sewer capacity. Especially concerned with how quickly the Town could reach a critical
level for the sewer system with very expensive changes that may be required to the sewer
infrastructure to support the development of this parcel. He does not recommend approval.

Mr. David Norden, a resident of 318 Falmouth Street, spoke against the application. He said this
project represents one of the most extraordinary cases of greed that he has ever seen hit our community
in his lifetime, all while dangling out the movie theater carrot when everyone in this room knows full
well a movie theater company is not coming here. This deal has been a farce from the start. First, the
owners did not have the required 25 acres of undeveloped land to use the I-PUD Ordinance, so they
convinced the Town Council to change the rules and allow Mr. Forstens already developed land to
join in. Then they still could not adequately fulfill their greed so they came back to the Town Council
and got them to amend the Ordinance to allow more components that are commercial in the project.
This is not how this land is planned or how this land is zoned. The strip of land between Walker Drive
and the Eastern Bypass was created in the mid 90s to provide a place to attract new business and

Page 9
industry with higher paying jobs and for existing businesses to expand. This is exactly what has
happened along this corridor, including in the Towns business park. The road network cannot take the
tremendous increase in traffic from this commercial strip center, and the sewer capacity especially is
clearly inadequate.

Mr. Norden went on to say you cannot buy your way out of I&I problem in the Town, it will go on
forever, and you should not tax the citizens to death trying. If this land were developed as its planed
and zoned, no stoplight will be required along Walker Drive or out at the 29 Interchange. Lastly, I
would ask what if all of us who owned property wanted this kind of massive increased use? I own
commercial and residential property, are you going to give me quadruple the intensity of use? Where
would our community be if we all acted with such greed and disrespect to the Ordinances? Please do
not open the Pandoras Box here and just say no to this outrageous request.

Ms. Sally Semple of Falmouth Street said as a Steering Committee member for the 2000-2025
Comprehensive Plan Review, she does not think this application is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. She cited sewer system inadequacies requiring attention before approving an application that will
bring the Town above DEQ limits. Moreover, she does not want traffic volume issues similar to
Northern Virginia, although she does support a roundabout at Walker Drive and East Lee Street. She
noted the Warrenton Chase Housing Development was not included in the TIA and regarding the
Zoning Text Amendment granted last year to accommodate the Walker Drive proposal as an I-PUD
increased housing densities and decreased the open space requirements for I-PUDs. Even with
loosening those restrictions, the development still does not meet the land use requirements of an I-PUD
even by calling all 35,000 sq. ft. of restaurant industrial, which is permissible. She feels the applicant is
taking advantage of the increased densities that were created for them in the I-PUD, but letting them
build a commercial development. Ms. Schaeffer confirmed Commission members had received Ms.
Semples formal comments.

Mr. William Semple he was in agreement with his wife. He thinks the remote possibility of a Movie
Theater has some supporting this application, but notes after five years the applicant is not under
obligation to construct a movie Theater. The applicant could use the site for any other permitted use,
which would give our Town a garden-variety type of commercial development like seen all over the
country that does not reflect the small Town character of Warrenton. Staff acknowledges the proposal
cannot be compared to the Comprehensive Plan because I-PUDs do not exist in the plan, which I think
is a critical issue. In addition, when staff says this is a policy decision then the decision should be made
in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan and not independent of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Larry Kovalik of Brookshire Drive said the Commissions vision was important in the decision for
this application, adding they should consider the issues that have been brought up by members of the
community. He said it was paramount for the Commission to get the issue right especially in respect to
the traffic and sewer impact issues involved.

Ms. Helander closed the Public Hearing at 9:32 PM.

Mr. Kip said he has been reading documents regarding the application for two years, adding he did not
like the project then and he likes it less now. He said standing on Blackwell Road looking down
Walker Drive, on the left-hand side or east side of the road there is some sort of industry (real estate
and physician offices, storage, and the Holiday Inn), but there is no commercial the rest of the way
down to the college. To put a commercial opportunity on the East side of Warrenton is lopsided. We
have plenty of empty stores in Town. If the movie theater companies with their marketing and

Page 10
demographics had thought Warrenton to be a prime area they would have been here long ago. He also
expressed major concerns with the sewer system that will not get better. He asked if anyone had
questions or comments before making a motion.

Mr. Stewart said he had questions about the analysis of the utilities. He reiterated that the Director of
Public Works said the utility system capacity would not be an issue with this project, which Ms.
Schaeffer confirmed. He said this was positive in addition to the projected approximate revenue of a
million dollars that would help to remedy issues in the Town. Ms Schaeffer said most of those
meetings were held between the engineer for the applicant and the Director of Public Works to work
through several iterations, proponents and analysis to come up with what he is comfortable with at this
point. Referring to the situation on Falmouth Street several years ago, he asked if this situation and
capacity are unrelated. Ms. Schaeffer said Mr. Paul Bernard, Deputy Director of Public Works was
here, but unsure if he could answer. Mr. Bernard said he is not sure, but thinks the situation was a
collapsed pipe and/or blockage combination causing failure to a pump system.

Ms. Dingus stated the whole Post Zoning Master Development Plan leaves her with a lot of questions
and concerns. What can this cover or not cover? Ms. Schaeffer said it provides more information than
we have now and gives us an opportunity for conversation before having a site plan. She went on to
explain how this provides an opportunity to recapture some costs through proffers since Virginia does
not have Impact Fees as in most states. As Ms. Bolthouse said earlier, once arriving at that point the
ability to change them is much more difficult and a delicate balance.

Mr. Stewart said this is a big project and the amount of ambiguity makes him uncomfortable. The
application with many unknowns such as how the overall design will look in terms of layout,
provisions for landscaping, streetscape guidelines and the idea of a central plaza we do not know if it
will be large enough to meet the needs of this new population or what the design might be. Traffic
concerns and we might need to see some additional phasing that makes this application difficult to
evaluate at this stage even with the amount of information provided.

Several Commission members agreed there might be more questions and concerns after hearing the
comments made tonight.

Mr. Downs said after reading the proposal it seems somewhat vague, but thought this was due to the
nature of this phase. He wonders if there are outstanding items or clarifications needed at this phase or
if that will come in Phase 2 when tenants are known.

Ms. Schaeffer said every rezoning is speculative until built; so all rezonings have a speculative
component unless an end user is involved. Many developers look to partner with an end user to provide
more certainty in this phase, which is not the case with this application and why staff has said it has
done all it can do offset as much uncertainty as possible.

Mr. Kip said his decision on the project was the same as it was a year and a half ago, adding its so
speculative that we are making a decision on what may or may not be. There is very little definition
and he added he cannot make a commitment for the Town based on dreams.

Ms. Schaeffer said that in the back of the staff report is a land use analysis that shows specifically what
uses can happen right now which can be speculative in nature. If one looks at those key highlighted
uses, one can see what is outside the realm of what is permitted today. She said its not to say that what
is being proposed is better than by right, but when one looks at a parcel that is already zoned.

Page 11
Several members agreed the proffers are not strong enough.

Mr. Zarabi said he believes this could have been one of the better projects, but he is timid about it, not
because of some of its merits, but because historically we have not done a great job of planning for
these things. All this leaves us debating and members of the community rightfully questioning. He said
we should be responsible to consider rezoning if the existing is no longer practical, adding he did not
know if all possible zoning/uses for this piece of land have been exhausted.

Mr. Hamby said he appreciated the fact that many people came out to speak on this application. He
remembers back when this project had five or six pages of unanswered questions, but we are still at
probably 2.5 pages of questions. Certainly, people have questions about infrastructure and traffic, and
there are concerns that the proffers seem weak but heavy with commitment on the Town side. He was
not sure if the Planning Commission should be done tonight, but at least we got to the point for
community members to voice their views.

Ms. Helander said our options this evening are to motion for, against, or to table. She added that she
had other questions that she would like to get answers for before she can make an informed decision.
She stated they would be meeting next Tuesday and could possibly continue the discussions.

Ms. Schaeffer said the application can be added to the Work Session agenda, and any items the
applicants need to address can be worked on before the March Public Hearing. The Applicant was
consulted, but not available.

Mr. Kip said the staff has done a great job with this application. We have more information now, but
there are still too many unanswered questions as well as concerns with sewer requirements. He said
another Work Session would not be helpful to him.

Mr. Downs stated we are approving this phase of construction and this type of work; you are not going
to have more detail so we have to vote on what is in front of us. This is the basis for my vote and I am
ready to vote.

Ms. Helander stated that the one thing she did not like is the statement by the applicant that this is
packaged to sell. From day one, we were told this was local people with the intent to remain local,
which is a concern.

Ms. Schaeffer directed the applicant to address the question, but the applicant did not hear the question
so Ms. Schaeffer went on to say that the applicant has indicated the intent to remain an owner. She
stated this has been a question of hers as well and that often she sees mixed-use projects needing
partners. The applicant has verbally agreed to be a partner and would not do something to harm his
own development. Ms. Schaeffer asked if the applicant had anything additional to add. There was
nothing added.

Ms. Dingus asked Ms. Schaeffer how and at what point will the applicant address the issues on using
terms like minor, and shall, the provisions for bike trails and pedestrians, and architectural features.

Ms. Schaeffer said some of the items are minor and wording, but others are pedestrian access and
linear feet of sidewalks and trails. We do not have those details yet, and believe they could and should
be added into the design guidelines. It is not something we have at this point and remains a concern of

Page 12
staff. Without details on sidewalk size and design, staff cannot comment on the adequacies of what is
being provided by the applicant. There are opportunities to address these unknowns in proffers but we
do not have that at this time.

Ms. Dingus asked Ms. Schaeffer if this is something she could provide before the Planning
Commission has to vote.

Mr. Robinson stepped in to say there appears to be outstanding questions by several members
including one new member. Maybe the Planning Commission could submit these and we could defer
until March. He stated this is your call to make.

Mr. Zarabi said, often we see applications that have an end user. Why is this project being submitted
before there is an end user? He directed that question to Mr. Foote who responded that at this point we
do not have an end user although several partners are interested at this time. As a follow up to Ms.
Schaeffer's statement, the owner does plan to retain ownership, but most contract purchasers will not
execute until the zoning is in place. We understand the concern, which is why we have added the
Master Development Plan as a part of a next step once we have an end user purchaser.

Ms. Helander stated an interesting point of tonight is that Falmouth Street was well represented, but
there were no one from Walker Drive. She added that the traffic study was a concern because of the
inclusion of the adjacent subdivisions in the study.

Ms. Schaeffer noted that Warrenton Chase is not included in background traffic, just Warrenton
Crossing. The inclusion of the traffic in the background is a VDOT and Town decision that was
decided in the scoping meeting. The by-right development was not included in the background traffic,
which Ms. Schaeffer credited Ms. Semple for pointing out. Ms. Schaeffer went on to explain she had a
conversation with the Transportation Consultant who confirmed some errors made on inclusion and
exclusion could actually cancel each other, making them feel confident with the TIA.
Mr. Downs made a motion to approve Zoning Map Amendment 2016-01- Walker Drive I-PUD.

Ms. Helander seconded the motion and asked if there was any discussion. The motion failed 1-6-0 (Mr.
Downs in favor and 6 nays).

Mr. Kip made an alternate motion to deny Zoning Map Amendment 2016-01 for the following
reasons: the project is not clear, too many unanswered questions, concerns about the sewer needs, and
there is no reason to change the zoning from Industrial.

Mr. Zarabi seconded the motion. Planning Commission discussion on the motion followed.

Mr. Robinson said if there is a motion for denial that reasons are given to allow healthy discussion as
Mr. Kip has done.

Mr. Stewart said the public comments this evening did not elicit a lot of positive response or a
compelling show of support from the public in general.

Ms. Maas said she agreed with Mr. Kip that this is a successful industrial area and the application is
lopsided Commercial vs. Industrial. She added there are many outstanding issues, including no
timeline and not enough commitment to design guidelines and project landscaping. She believes the

Page 13
Town is ready for this type of development, but the lack of commitment makes supporting the
application impossible.

Ms. Dingus stated she agreed with Ms. Maas.

Mr. Downs stated there was an issue with not having enough detail, which is a characteristic relating to
I-PUD applications. If the Commission is uncomfortable with this specific level of detail, we may want
to consider refraining from these types of applications in the future.

Ms. Helander said the plan could be great in theory, but the information to make a decision is
incomplete and cannot be supported.

The motion to deny Zoning Map Amendment 2016-01 passed 6-1-0 (Mr. Downs against). Mr.
Robinson conducted a role call to confirm votes.

Ms. Helander adjourned the meeting at 10:23 PM.

Page 14
 TOWN OF WARRENTON
18 Court Street, Warrenton, Virginia 20186 PLANNING & COMMUNITY
(540) 347-2405 - Planning@warrentonva.gov Internet DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
www.warrentonva.gov

Brandie M. Schaeffer
Director of Planning May 16, 2017

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Brandie M. Schaeffer

Director of Community Development

RE: Special Use Permit #2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

I. Summary:

A. Applicant/Owner: NACR, LLC.

B. Representative: David R. Hall
C. Request - The request is for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a drive through facility at 286
Broadview Avenue, as allowed under Article 3-4.10.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The drive
through facility would be associated with a new Popeyes fast food restaurant. The plans
submitted show a new 2,397 square foot restaurant, located in the middle of the parcel, to be
accessed from Broadview Avenue.
Popeyes Drive
Existing Proposed
Through
SUP/site area +/- 0.745 acres +/- 0.745 acres
Building Area 7,220 SF 2,397 SF
Parking 34 23 spaces
25 ft. wide landscaped buffer and a
Buffer None retaining wall with a 6 ft privacy
fence on top
2 cherry trees and some Above zoning ordinance required:
Landscaping
shrubs 29 shrubs & 4 trees
1 freestanding monument style sign;
Signage 5 Wall Signs
3 Wall Signs
Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant
May 16, 2017
Page 2
Popeyes Drive
Existing Proposed
Through
Tire Zone:
Mon-Sat 9am 5:30pm
Ace Motors, LLC:
Sun-Thurs 10am-11pm
Hours of Operation Mon/Fri 12-5pm
Fri-Sat 10am-12am
Tue-Wed 2pm-5pm
Thurs Apt only
Sat 11am-5pm

D. Site Location - The site is located at 286 Broadview Avenue (see maps in Attachment A). The
SUP site is identified on County maps as GPIN 6984-17-1845-000.
E. Comprehensive Plan - The site is designated Re-planned Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
F. Zoning - The site is zoned Commercial.
G. Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Zoning Current Land Use
North Commercial Jiffy Lube
South Commercial Warrenton Plaza
East Commercial Wendys/Trusted Auto Care
West R-15 Residential

II. Outstanding Issues

There are no outstanding issues with this request.

III. Overview:

Located at 286 Broadview Avenue, the existing site contains three existing structures including an
automobile dealership, auto repair shop, warehouse, and associated offices. The rear of the site abuts
residential dwellings. Commercial uses surround the north, south and east sides of the site.

The applicant is requesting to build a Popeyes restaurant with a single drive through lane. The proposed
SUP Plans show the applicant utilizing a front setback reduction allowed under Article 3-4.10.4, which
reduces front setback requirements by 20 feet if no parking is located between the structure and front lot
line. The SUP plans also include provisions for utilities, a new fire hydrant, sidewalk connections across
and within the site, and additional landscaping above Zoning Ordinance requirements. As required, there
is a proposed landscape buffer between the parking lot and adjacent dwellings. This buffer meets Zoning
Ordinance requirements with a 6-foot fence and evergreen plantings facing the residential use. There is a
retaining wall below the required 6-foot buffer fence. A dumpster is located on the back of the building
and shall be screened as proposed on the SUP plans.

IV. Waivers:

The Applicant has requested an administrative waiver, per Article 7-2.10, to reduce the parking
requirement by one space to accommodate additional landscaping in the rear. Article 7-2.10 allows the
SUP 2017-01
Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant
May 16, 2017
Page 3
Zoning Administrator to reduce parking by 10%, which would allow for a reduction of up to two spaces
on this site.

V. Staff Recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend approval of SUP 2017-01 to Town
Council, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant, subject to the Conditions Statement dated May 16, 2017.

Staff: Kelly M. Machen

VI. Suggested Motions

1. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of SUP 2017-01 subject to the conditions
dated May 16, 2017.

OR

2. I move that the Planning Commission forward SUP 2017-01 to the next Planning Commission Work
Session.

OR

3. I move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of SUP 2017-01 for the following reasons:
[Insert].

OR

4. I move an alternative motion.

Attachments
A. Area Maps
B. SUP Considerations
C. Proposed Conditions and SUP Plan
D. Building Elevations

SUP 2017-01
 Attachment A - Map
VICINITY MAP

SUP #2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page A-1
 Attachment A - Map
AERIAL MAP

SUP #2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page A-2
 Attachment A - Map
EXISTING ZONING MAP

SUP #2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page A-3
 Attachment A - Map
FUTURE LAND USE MAP

SITE

SUP #2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page A-4
 Attachment B Staff Analysis

Staff Analysis

This analysis is based on the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and review comments by Town
Departments and Town Technical Transportation Advisor. The standards/analysis tables in the sections below
contain the criteria for Planning Commission and Town Council consideration of Special Use Permits, per Article
11-3.1.3.

The following table summarizes the area characteristics (see maps in Attachment A):

Direction Land Use Future Land Use Map Designation Zoning

North Jiffy Lube Re-Planned Commercial Commercial

South Warrenton Plaza Re-Planned Commercial Commercial

East Wendys/Trusted Auto Care Re-Planned Commercial Commercial

West Residential Low Density Residential R-15

Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Analysis

The Comprehensive Plan is very detailed in multiple sections regarding the treatment of Broadview Avenue,
transportation improvements, walkability, established neighborhoods, the saving of trees, sign treatments,
economic development, and design. These high-profile parcels are located at a key intersection along a heavily
traveled corridor that borders residential on its rear boundaries.

The 2002 Comprehensive Plan labels these parcels in the Future Land Use Map as Re-Planned Commercial. This
designation calls for the encouragement of the older commercial areas to be re-planned to provide pedestrian-
oriented streetscapes with parking behind buildings, interparcel connections, access and buffers between
neighboring residential neighborhoods and in certain cases, on-street parking.

In the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, there is extensive focus on design policies and guidelines that further the
Towns goals of promoting a visually pleasing environment and preserving scenic views, small town
atmosphere, and landscape character. Modern economic and cultural forces that can conflict with the historic
character and reduce the visual distinction of Warrenton in relation to other communities influence trends in
new development.
Thus, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to address these potential conflicts by encouraging newer development to
incorporate the historic pattern and scale of Old Town to guide the character of new architecture and urban
design efforts for newer areas of Town.

Standard Analysis
The Special Use Permit plans show a plan that re-
Whether the proposed Special Use Permit is
develops an older site, providing parking behind the
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
building and a residential buffer.

SUP 2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page B-1
 Attachment B Staff Analysis

Standard Analysis
The proposed buffer is in accordance with the Zoning
The compatibility of the proposed use with other
Ordinance requirements to shield the rear residential use
existing or proposed uses in the neighborhood, and
from the proposed drive through. Other adjacent parcels
adjacent parcels.
are all commercial. No buffer currently exists on site.
Proposals Strengths

The Application meets the overall goals of the Future Land Use designation.

The Application provides a larger buffer then currently exists between the site and adjacent residential
development.

The Application has a relocated dumpster to behind the building and provided a lighting plan in accordance
with site development requirements to help address off-site impacts of the use on the neighboring residential
development .

Proposals Weaknesses

None identified.

Zoning Analysis

The legislative intent of the Commercial District is to encourage the logical and timely development of land for a
range of commercial purposes in accordance with the objectives, policies, and proposals of the Comprehensive
Plan; to prohibit any use which would create undue impacts on surrounding residential areas; and to assure
suitable design to protect the residential environment of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods. It is further
declared to be the intent of this district to limit traffic congestion, overcrowding of land, noise, glare, and
pollution, so as to lessen the danger to the public safety, and to ensure convenient and safe pedestrian access to
and from commercial sites as well as between adjacent commercial sites. The protective standards contained in
this Article are intended to minimize any adverse effect of the commercial district on nearby property values and
to provide for safe and efficient use of the commercial district itself.

Standard
The location and area footprint with dimensions,
nature, and height of existing or proposed buildings,
structures, walls, and fences on the site and in the
neighborhood. The location, character, and size of
any outdoor storage, accessory uses and structures,
and refuse and service areas.
The proposed location, lighting and type of signs
in relation to the proposed use, uses in the area,
and the sign requirements of this Ordinance.
Analysis
All proposed and existing structures are shown on the
SUP Plan. Front setbacks are reduced by 20 feet per
Article 3-4.10.4, because no parking/loading areas are
located in front of the building. A retaining wall and 6
foot fence shall be located in the rear of the property. A
dumpster is to be to the rear of the building with
screening.
Details for the monument sign and wall signs are shown
on the SUP Plan. All signs will require permits in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.

SUP 2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page B-2
 Attachment B Staff Analysis

Standard Analysis
The existing automobile dealership is a legal non-
conforming use. This use is currently discontinued, but
The location and use of any existing non-conforming two years must pass before the grandfathering status is
uses and structures. lost. The site currently contains structures with legal
non-conforming setbacks. These will be removed as part
of this project.

Proposals Strengths

The Application would remove existing non-conforming structures and uses.

The Application takes advantage of front setback reductions by removing parking and loading areas in the
front of the building.

Proposals Weaknesses

None identified.

Natural Environment Analysis

The Natural Environment section of the Comprehensive Plan Environment Plan sets out policies and objectives
that further the Towns goals to (1) enhance the Towns aesthetic character through preservation of significant
natural features and vistas and through landscaping and tree planting; (2) preserve the visual and ecological value
of the Towns significant natural resources, including floodplains, steep slopes and mature vegetation; and (3)
preserve the scenic, rural views from within the Town to the surrounding areas.

This section includes recommendations relating to: the preservation of usable open space, conservation of natural
resources, promoting the use of existing topography, minimization of existing tree cover loss, promotion of
additional landscaping, incorporation of environmentally sensitive development techniques, improvement of air
quality, identification of problematic soil issues, enhancement of surface and groundwater quality, limitations on
impervious surfaces, and limitations on excessive outdoor lighting and noise levels.

Standard Analysis
Whether the proposed Special Use Permit will result
in the preservation or destruction, loss or damage of This is a fully developed site. Existing buildings and
any significant topographic or physical, natural, structures are to be removed as part of this proposal.
scenic, archaeological or historic feature.
Landscaping and screening are shown on the Special Use
The nature and extent of existing or proposed
Plan. Proposed landscaping includes 29 additional shrubs
landscaping, screening and buffering on the site and
and 4 additional trees above what is required in the
in the neighborhood.
Zoning Ordinance.

SUP 2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page B-3
 Attachment B Staff Analysis

Standard
The proposed use of open space. The location and
screening of parking and loading spaces and/or
areas.
The effect of the proposed Special Use Permit on
environmentally sensitive land or natural features,
wildlife habitat and vegetation, water quality and
air quality. The location of any major floodplain
and steep slopes.
The glare or light that may be generated by the
proposed use in relation to uses in the immediate
area.
The level and impact of any noise emanating from
the site, including that generated by the proposed
use, in relation to the uses in the immediate area.
Any anticipated odors, which may be generated by
the uses on site.
Analysis
There is to be a 25-foot buffer along the rear of the
property. In addition, a 15-foot utility easement partially
overlaps with part of the buffer area. This removes 8 feet
of planting area from the buffer to protect the water main.
Parking is screened from view due to location in the rear.
Per Article 7-2.10, an administrative reduction from the
required 24 spaces to 23 spaces is requested to provide
additional landscaping.
None identified and/or located on site.
As requested by the Zoning Administrator, a lighting
plan was submitted, which meets Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
A dumpster is located behind the building with screening
to help with potential neighborhood concerns with noise
and odors. Deliveries and pickups are restricted to 6 AM
to 10 AM to reduce noise concerns.

Proposals Strengths

Proposed lighting meets Zoning Ordinance requirements concerning full cut-off design and light spillage.

The dumpster location is screened and located away from the rear property line.

Additional landscaping is being provided for the parking area.

Proposals Weaknesses

Due to the utility easement overlapping with the landscape buffer by 8 feet, the required landscaping for the
buffer is constrained to a 17-foot wide area along the rear property line. However, the buffering meets Zoning
Ordinance requirements.

On balance, the Application is overall consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and relevant components of the
Natural Environment section of the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with Virginia Stormwater Management
regulations will be at Site Plan submission.

Transportation and Circulation Analysis

The primary transportation and circulation goal for the Town of Warrenton is To encourage the development of
a safe, efficient and multi-modal transportation system for the movement of people, goods and services, in and

SUP 2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page B-4
 Attachment B Staff Analysis

around the Town that is consistent with the historic fabric, land use pattern and expected future fiscal needs of the
Town. The Transportation and Circulation section of the Comprehensive Plan sets out policies and objectives
that work to further this goal. The section includes recommendations addressing improvements for pedestrian use,
new street connections, parking and sidewalks, trails, cost sharing, traffic calming techniques, safety, and signage.

Standard
The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed
use, the adequacy of access roads and the vehicular
and pedestrian circulation elements (on and off-site)
of the proposed use, all in relation to the public's
interest in pedestrian and vehicular safety, efficient
traffic movement and access in case of fire or
catastrophe.
Whether the proposed Special Use Permit at the
specified location will contribute to or promote the
welfare or convenience of the public.
Whether the proposed use will facilitate orderly and
safe road development and transportation.
Analysis
The traffic estimated existing Vehicle Per Day (VPD)
traffic is 816 VPD and 960 VPD with the proposed
drive through. This represents an increase of 144 VPD.
The existing sidewalk along Broadview Avenue
connects the site to the adjacent parcels. As requested,
a pedestrian connection from the existing sidewalk to
the building is proposed.
This Application does not require a Transportation
Impact Analysis. Stacking on site is as required by the
Zoning Ordinance and has been demonstrated on the
plan and meets Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Proposals Strengths

The Application preserves inter-parcel connectors and existing sidewalks.

The Application provides pedestrian connection from the building to the existing sidewalk.

Proposals Weaknesses

The Application does represent an increase in traffic of 144 VDP.

On balance, the Application is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and relevant components of the
Transportation and Circulation section of the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with VDOT standards/regulations
will be finalized at Site Plan submission.

Community Facilities and Services Analysis

Public community facilities in the Town are provided by the Town, Fauquier County, and other public groups for
the benefit of all residents. The availability and quality of these facilities, that include, schools, libraries, hospitals,
parks, police and fire and rescue services, are evaluated when people are considering moving into the Town or
nearby area. The provision of these facilities adds to the desirability of living in the Town. The Comprehensive
Plans primary community facilities and services goals for the Town of Warrenton are:

1. To ensure adequate community facilities conveniently located to serve existing and future neighborhoods.
2. To provide high quality community facilities and services while maintaining stable taxes commensurate
with the developing Town area and within the constraints of the Towns fiscal capacity.
SUP 2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant
Page B-5
 Attachment B Staff Analysis

3. To continue providing a safe, reliable, and cost-efficient water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste
collection services to all Town residents, and water and sewer services within designated areas of the
Town of Warrenton Fauquier County Master Water and Sewer Agreement.
4. To obtain the Towns proportionate share of community services provided by other governments,
including a fair and reasonable balance in funding sources for community facilities and services from
Town residents, businesses, the County government, the State and Federal governments, and developers.
Public services are essential to the community structure and quality of life, as well as to long-term economic
vitality. They support existing and planned developments and contribute to the health, safety, education and
general welfare of Warrenton residents.

Standard
Whether the proposed Special Use Permit will
adequately provide for safety from fire hazards and
have effective measures of fire control.
Whether the proposed Special Use Permit will be
served adequately by essential public facilities,
services and utilities.
The location of any existing and/or proposed
adequate on and off-site infrastructure.
Analysis
Fire Lane signage compliance will be determined at site
plan submission. Islands in the rear parking are painted
to provide additional turn-around space.
The site is currently served by Town services and
utilities.
Existing and proposed utilities are shown on the SUP
Plan. Additional utilities conditions are included on the
SUP Plan. A new fire hydrant is to be installed along
Broadview Avenue.

Proposals Strengths

The Application provides a new fire hydrant and includes conditions identified by the Public Works and
Public Utilities Department.

Proposals Weaknesses

The narrowness of the site limits the width provided for access to the rear of the parking lot by a fire truck.

On balance, this Application is consistent with the Community Facilities and Services goal in the Comprehensive
Plan, To ensure adequate community facilities conveniently located to serve existing and future neighborhoods.
Final compliance with the Public Facilities Manual and Fire Rescue/Safety concerns will be completed at time of
Site Plan submission.
Economic Resources Analysis

The Town of Warrenton seeks to strengthen its economic base through business development and tourism
promotion. The goals of the Economic Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan are to:

1. Maintain the Towns role as the economic and governmental center of Fauquier County.
2. Promote and maintain the economic vitality of the historic downtown area.
3. Promote a diverse, balanced and stable employment base.

SUP 2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page B-6
 Attachment B Staff Analysis

4. Promote a stable and healthy commercial tax base that expands in proportion to the residential tax base.

Standard Analysis
Whether the proposed Special Use Permit use will
provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base Estimated number of people served per day by the
by encouraging economic development activities Applicant is 400.
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The number of employees. Not provided.
Sunday - Thursday 10 am to 11 pm
The proposed days/hours of operation.
Friday & Saturday: 10 am to 12 am

Proposals Strengths

Restaurants bring economic revenue to the Town of Warrenton.

Proposals Weaknesses

Exact proposed potential economic impact is unknown.

On balance, it is uncertain if the Application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Economic Resources
section goal to, promote a stable and healthy commercial tax base that expands in proportion to the residential
tax base.
Agency Comments

The following agencies have reviewed the proposal. Individual comments attached:

Planning and Community Development Department

Public Works and Utilities Department
Kimley-Horn
Warrenton Volunteer Fire and Rescue

SUP 2017-01, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant

Page B-7
 Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Owner/Applicant: NACR, LLC.
Special Use Permit: SUP #2017-01
Address: 286 Broadview Avenue
GPIN 6984-17-1845-000 (the Property)
Special Use Permit Area: +/-0.745 acres
Zoning: Commercial
Date: May 16, 2017

In approving a Special Use Permit, the Town Council may impose such conditions, safeguards and restrictions as
may be necessary to avoid, minimize or mitigate any potentially adverse or injurious effect of such special uses
upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to carry out the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance. The
Council may require a guarantee or bond to ensure that compliance with the imposed conditions. All required
conditions shall be set out in the documentation approving the Special Use Permit (SUP).

The Applicant shall file a site plan within one (1) year of approval of this Special Use Permit by the Town
Council, and shall have up to five (5) years from the date of final site plan approval to commence the proposed
use. Issuance of an occupancy permit constitutes commencement of the use.

1. Site Development The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with these conditions and
the Special Use Permit Plan, Popeyes Drive Through Restaurant (the "Plan"), dated March 15, 2017, and
prepared by DRH Engineers, PLC.

2. Use Parameters

a. Special Use Permit Area The special use permit shall apply to the entire +/-0.745-acre property.

b. Use Limitations - The use shall be limited to a single drive through facility.

c. Noise As stated on the Plan, refuse pick-up and deliveries shall not occur between the hours of
10 PM and 6 AM.

3. Refuse Storage Area - Any refuse storage areas shall be screened with a solid enclosure constructed of
materials that are compatible with the buildings on the property.

4. Buffers The Applicant shall provide a minimum 25-foot wide buffer as shown on the Plan along rear
boundary of the site.

5. Landscaping The Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance and replacement of all plantings on
site.

6. Stormwater Management The site is to be planned and designed as a redeveloped site under the State's
Runoff Reduction requirements for Stormwater Management (SWM) and in compliance with the Town of
Warrenton's SWM Ordinance.

7. Utilities

a. A fire hydrant will be located on site, as shown on the Plan.

 Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
b. Handicap sidewalk curb cuts will be installed at the sidewalk crossing of the entrance.

c. A 6" ductile-iron pipe water line will extend from water main in Town-right-of-way behind
property to a new fire hydrant set on Broadview Avenue.

d. Domestic water service will NOT be tapped off from fire line to fire hydrant. Separate tap will be
provided at right-of-way water main behind property with 15-foot easement wrapped around it.
Meter must be set in grass area of right-of-way.

e. Field verification will be done before ordering materials for 6" fire hydrant extension line. The 8"
water main shown in Town right-of-way may in fact be a 6."

f. Three valves are to be cut in at all water main "T's", including fire hydrant line extension.

8. Lighting As shown on the Plan, all lighting shall be full cut-off, to minimize glare, sky glow, and light trespass.

9. Signs:

a. All signage shall be permitted in accordance with the Plan as shown and shall comply with any
Zoning Ordinance regulations at that time.

b. Unless otherwise permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, temporary signs, banners, balloons,
streamers, garrison flags, or similar attention- getting devices shall be strictly prohibited.
Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
Attachment C Special Use Permit Plan
Dated March 15, 2017
 STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION
FOR
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
POPEYES RESTAURANT
BROADVIEW AVENUE, WARRENTON, VA

Project Description:
This project consists of the construction of a new Popeyes Restaurant on Lot 12, Block A of the
Broadview Estates Subdivision which is part of the existing Fletcher Shopping center and Old
Bowling Lanes. The restaurant will replace an existing car dealership and existing buildings
located on the lot.
The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses in the area and conforms to the
comprehensive plan for intended uses in that location.
Site Data:
Zoning: Commercial (C)
Proposed Building size: 2,397 square feet
Current owner: NACR, LLC
Lessee: JANJER ENTERPRISES, INC
12150 TECH ROAD
SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 20904
(301) 625-5920

Parcel id: 6984-17-1845-000

Acreage: 0.745 acres or 34,453 s.f. (minimum required= 6,000 s.f.)
Setbacks: as shown on plan
Existing use: existing building, car repair facility and car dealer
Proposed use: Restaurant with drive thru lane (special permit required for drive-thru)
Proposed Hours of Operation: Sunday - Thursday 10 am to 11 pm
Friday & Saturday: 10 am to 12 am

Site Access: Access to site is from existing entrances off of Broadview Avenue one of which is
to be widened and improved as part of this project

Page 1
Potential Impacts

An analysis of the impact on the Town's transportation network and the ability of adjacent
streets and intersections to efficiently and safely move the volume of traffic generated by
the development, along with estimates of cost and means of providing improvements
required to service the proposed special use.
Vehicle trips per day should be less or similar to that generated by the
current use. Estimated number of people served a day is 400.

An analysis of the impact on the Town's community facilities including estimates of costs
and means of providing the additional community facilities which will be needed to serve
the proposed special use. Community facilities include, but shall not be limited to, sewage
disposal facilities and systems, solid waste disposal facilities and systems, water supply
facilities and systems, storm drainage facilities and systems, and electrical utility facilities
and systems.
Existing water and sewer are currently provided by the Town of Warrenton to
the site. Electric is provided by an existing service by Dominion Power and
Gas is provided by Columbia Gas. The proposed use will not have an
increased impact on the towns facilities.

An analysis of the ability of the Town to provide police and fire protection to the proposed
special use.
The Town currently provides police and fire protection to this site. There
should be no increased demand beyond what is already provided.

The proposed configuration and intensity of lighting facilities to be arranged in such a

manner to protect the streets and neighboring properties from direct glare or hazardous
interference.
The site lighting will be provided using fixtures with full cut-off down lamps
as required by town ordinance. The lighting patterns will conform to the
Town of Warrenton standards. The final site plan will include a site lighting
plan with appropriate lighting levels indicated at property lines

Noise impact and abatement studies to determine potential impact on adjoining properties
and neighborhoods.
There are no noise impacts anticipated with this use.

Page 2
Maps/Plans

A vicinity map depicting the adjacent and nearby (within 1,000 feet) land uses, streets and
other data customarily incidental to a vicinity map. SEE BELOW

A proposed site development plan indicating the location of the anticipated structures,
setback lines, street pattern, parking provisions, a screening plan, and common open
space if applicable. Such plans shall be contained on sheets measuring a minimum of 18"
X 24" and a maximum of 36" X 24". Site development plan will conform to these
requirements.

The delineation of any necessary screening for any uses or structural features deemed to
be incompatible with the objectives of this Article, the remainder of this Zoning Ordinance,
or the Comprehensive Plan including walls, fences, plantings, and/or other enclosures.
Other landscaping to enhance the effectiveness of the screening and to insure the
compatibility of use may also be required. A conceptual landscape plan is included
with this application. A waiver will be required to reduce the planting strip to 5
along the property line adjoining the Jiffy Lube facility.

The delineation of screening and buffering of all parking areas will be required in
accordance with a landscaping plan. Parking areas forward of the established building
setback line will be prohibited. See proposed site plan

The delineation of major trees on the site. Except to protect the public safety, avoid
property loss, or provide for required parking, all major trees forward of the building
setback line may be required for preservation if their removal would diminish the character
of the neighborhood. Existing trees along Broadview Avenue will be preserved.
JAMES MADISON HWY

Page 3
` FIGURE 1 MAP OF SURROUNDING ZONING FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY
(CIRCLE IS 1000 RADIUS)

Page 4
 SITE

FIGURE 2 VICINITY MAP OF SITE

Page 5
 u
0
i-::i
Ill
ffi
I
- e' ... I
,:I,,.
co
rn .. "S,

c:,

:z: i"""' i
-:I
w
N

w
' ..
0
1-1

:z:w Eu :a,. .a"'...

"' "'

:=cw,
...
c:, c:,
N
.. c:,
'

,l "'.,. "'
;:t

'

-..
"

FOR ... "'"' ...

"' C>
"

-.. ..."'
ca
';'
VICINITY MAP 1" = 2000' ,<I "'
0 '
Source: Town of Warrenton GIS "':z:
"'

TOWN OF WARRENTON, SHEET INDEX

VIRGINIA SHT.
NO.
DWG.
NO. SHEET NAME
1. T-01 TITLE SHEET

2. SUP-1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

3. SUP-2 PROPOSED PLAN AND NOTES

4. SUP-3 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS

PREPARED BY: 5. SUP-4 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS

6. SUP-5 DUMPSTER DETAILS

7. SUP-6 LIGHTING PLAN

ENGINEERS, PLC
CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - FORENSIC
9 North 3rd Street, Suite 205; Warrenton, Virginia 20186
540-349-7840 540-301-0331 fax www.drhengineers.com

PREPARED FOR:

JANJER ENTERPRISES, INC

12150 TECH ROAD
SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 20904
(301) 625-5920

MARCH 15, 2017

DESIGNED BY:
DRH
DRAWN BY:
DRH
CHECKED BY:
DRH
SCALE:
AS INDICATED

DATE:
12/30/16
DRHJOBNO:
216216.00
DRAWING NO:

T-01

SHEET 1 OF 5
 REVISIONS
00/00/00

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN

POPEYES RESTAURANT
WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
FOR
DESIGNED BY:
DRH
DRAWN BY:
DRH
CHECKED BY:
DRH
SCALE:
AS INDICATED

DATE:
12/30/16
DRH JOB NO:
216216.00
EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN DRAWING NO:
1 SCALE: 1"=20'

SHEET OF 6
 REVISIONS
00/00/00

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN

POPEYES RESTAURANT
WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
FOR
DESIGNED BY:
DRH
DRAWN BY:
DRH
CHECKED BY:
DRH
SCALE:
AS INDICATED

DATE:
12/30/16
DRH JOB NO:
216216.00
PROPOSED SITE PLAN DRAWING NO:
1 SCALE: 1"=20'

SHEET OF 6
 TREES UP TO 8' HT.. SHALL BE STAKED DOUBLE STRAND #12 GAUGE WIRE WITH TURNBUCKLES AND
WITH 2-2"X2" HARDWOOD STAKES. BLACK RUBBER HOSE BETWEEN TREE BARK AND WIRE
TREES OF 8' HT. OR LARGER SHALL BE
GUYED WITH 3 EQUALLY SPACED, TWISTED, WHITE PVC PLASTIC TUBING
DOUBLE STRAND #12 GAUGE WIRE WITH HOSE
AND TURNBUCKLES. LOOP HOSE AROUND CUT & REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 OF
TRUNK. PROVIDE PVC PLASTIC TUBING OVER WIRE. BALL AS SHOWN. SET ROOT BALL 4"
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER
SCARIFY SUBSOIL TO 4" MIN. DEPTH
INFORMATION.
GUYWIRES WITH TURN BUCKLES AND BLACK RUBBER MULCH SAUCER
HOSE BETWEEN TREE BARK AND WIRE
FINISHED GRADE
PVC PLASTIC TUBING
TREES UP TO 4" CAL. SHALL BE STAKED.
MULCH SAUCER TREES 4" CAL. OR LARGER SHALL BE
GUYING STAKE-TOP OF STAKE SHALL BE GUYED WITH 3 EQUALLY SPACED
FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE TWISTED, #12 GAUGE WIRE WITH HOSE
AND TURNBUCKLES. LOOP HOSE
FINISH GRADE AROUND TRUNK ABOVE BRANCHES
AS SHOWN, PROVIDE PVC PLASTIC TUBING
AMENDED SOIL MIX OVER WIRE. REFER TO SPECS.
CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 OF FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
BALL AS SHOWN. SET ROOT BALL 4" GUYING STAKE. TOP OF STAKE SHALL BE
ABOVE FINISH GRADE. FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE
OF BALL SCARIFY SUBSOIL TO 4" MIN. DEPTH AMENDED SOIL MIX
SUBGRADE OF BALL COMPACTED SUBGRADE
2 TIMES OF BALL
2 TIMES OF BALL

EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING ON GRADE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING ON GRADE

2 N.T.S. 3 N.T.S.

SET PLANTS IN ERECT, STABLE, AND

UNIFORM POSITIONS.
SHRUB SHALL BEAR SAME RELATION

REVISIONS
TO FINISH GRADE AS IT BORE TO ITS
PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GRADE.
PLANT SCHEDULE
REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR Botanical Common Size CoverageDetail
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION KEY Quantity Name Name Height Spred Cal. (SF) No.#
QUERCUS (WO) --
MULCH 3" MAXIMUM 1 15' 250 3" B&B
PHELLOS WILLOW OAK
ACER (RM) --
7 15' 250 3" B&B
RUBRUM RED MAPLE
CERCIS (RB) --
NOTE: 3 CANADENSIS 12' 200 2" B&B
REDBUD
REMOVE CONTAINER AND SPLIT OR FRAY ROOTS PINUS (WP) -- --
12 STRBUS 8' 150 B&B
OF POTTED PLANTS PRIOR TO PLANTING. WHITE PINE
49 2' -- -- -- 1 gal

CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP

1/3 OF BALL AS SHOWN

00/00/00
AMENDED SOIL MIX

LIMIT OF BAREROOT SPREAD

OF BALL
2 TIMES OF BALL
COMPACTED SOIL MIX BELOW SHRUB OR SUBGRADE

SHRUB PLANTING ON GRADE

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN

4

POPEYES RESTAURANT
N.T.S.

LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS PER Z0 8.6

WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
1. REQ. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING - 1 TREE AND 3 SHRUBS/50' OF LENGTH
(PER Z0 8-6.1.3 EXISTING TREES LOCATED WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY
CAN COUNT TOWARDS THIS REQUIREMENT)

FOR
TREES REQUIRED ON NORTHERN OR RIGHT SIDE OF PROPERTY=300'/50'= 6
TREES PROVIDED ON NORTHERN OR RIGHT SIDE OF PROPERTY = 1 + 5 EXISTING = 6
SHRUBS REQUIRED = 300'/50'x3= 18
SHRUBS PROVIDED = 20
TREES REQUIRED ON SOUTHERN OR LEFT SIDE OF PROPERTY =135'/50' = 2.7
TREES PROVIDED = 3
SHRUBS REQ.= 135'/50'x3= 8.1
SHRUBS PROVIDED = 22

2. REQ. STREET TRESS - 1 CANOPY TREE/50' OR TWO ORNAMENTAL TREES /50'

2 EXISTING TREES MEET REQUIREMENT BUT 3 ADDITIONALTREES PROVIDED

3. REQ. INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING 1 TREE AND 3 SHRUBS/8PARKING

SPACES.
24 PARKING SPACES/8= 3 TREES AND 9 SHRUBS
PROVIDED 4 TREES AND 22 SHRUBS

4. REQ. SCREENING AT REAR OF PROPERTY PER Z0 8-8 PROVIDING 100 LF

OF 6' PRIVACY FENCE ABOVE RETAINING WALL AND 10 EVERGREEN TREES

DESIGNED BY:
DRH
DRAWN BY:
DRH
CHECKED BY:
DRH
SCALE:
AS INDICATED

MONUMENT SIGN DETAIL DATE:

6 N.T.S. 12/30/16
DRH JOB NO:
216216.00

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN DRAWING NO:

1 SCALE: 1"=20'

SHEET OF 6
 REVISIONS
00/00/00

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN

POPEYES RESTAURANT
WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
FOR
CONCEPT BUILDING ELEVATION VIEWS
1 N.T.S.

DESIGNED BY:
DRH
DRAWN BY:
DRH
CHECKED BY:

CONCEPT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ELEVATION VIEWS DRH

2 N.T.S.
SCALE:
AS INDICATED

DATE:
12/30/16
DRH JOB NO:
216216.00
DRAWING NO:

SHEET OF 6
 FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

REVISIONS
00/00/00
PROVIDE BLACK
PAINTED CONCRETE
AT THIS AREA

45 @
CONCRETE
EDGES

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN

12" X 18"

POPEYES RESTAURANT
FOOTING

FACTORY-FIN.
FLASHING, TYP. AT
FACTORY-FIN. TOP OF GATE
COPING, TYP. AT PANELS
CEDAR OR WOOD TOP OF WALL

WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
COMPOSITE GATE PANELS
SEE DETAIL J/SD1 BOND BEAM
COURSE W/ 2"x4" TOP RAIL

FOR
8" SPLIT FACE & (1) #5 CONT., GROUT
PAINTED COLOR: SOLID 8" CMU W/ #5 METAL DECK,
VERTICAL REBAR @
PER FT

"MOCHA
SLOPE

FACTORY-FIN.
BROWN" SEE 32" O.C.
1/4"

EXTERIOR
FINISH
HORIZ. REINF.
SCHEDULE
16" O.C.
OPTIONAL FLOOR
DRAIN AS RQD. BY 8" THICK POUR-IN GATE DETAILS
LOCAL CODE. C.J. @ 10'-0"
PLACE SLAB W/ 6"x6" -
O.C.
10/10 W.W.M. ON 6"
1/4" PAVEMENT AGG. BASE
SLOPE SURFACE
SLOPE 1/4"
PER FT AS
SPECIFIED PER FT

6" THICK P.C.C.

1/4"
SLOPE
PER FT

SLAB W/ 6" X 6" -

10/10 W.W.M. ON #5 BARS
6" GRAVEL BASE CONT. TOP &
BOTTOM

CEDAR OR WOOD
COMPOSITE GATE SEE
DETAIL J/SD1

WALL SECTION GATE ELEVATION

DESIGNED BY:
DRH
6" DIA. PIPE, 8' LONG DRAWN BY:
FILLED W/ CONCRETE. TOP DRH
OF PIPE; 4' ABOVE SLAB,
REQ'D FOOTING: 2'-0" DIA. PLAN VIEW CHECKED BY:
DRH
X 4'-0" DEEP. (TYP.)
SCALE:
DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS AS INDICATED
1 SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0" DATE:
12/30/16
DRH JOB NO:
216216.00
DRAWING NO:

SHEET OF 6
 REVISIONS
LIGHT DETAIL
2 N.T.S.

00/00/00

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN

POPEYES RESTAURANT
WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
FOR
DESIGNED BY:
DRH
DRAWN BY:
DRH
CHECKED BY:
DRH
SCALE:
AS INDICATED

DATE:
12/30/16
DRH JOB NO:
216216.00
DRAWING NO:
LIGHTING PLAN
1 SCALE: 3/8"=1'-0"

SHEET OF 6
P LANNING C OMMISSION
Annual Report
2016
 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS

Chair
Dr. John W. Harre Appointed 1993
Vice Chair
Brandie Schaeffer JanOct; Appointed 2013
Vice Chair
Susan Rae Helander NovDec; Appointed 2003

Christine Dingus Appointed 2016

Jeremy Downs Appointed 2016

Brett Hamby Appointed 2015Jul 2016

John P. Kip Appointed 2002

Anna Maas Appointed 2016

Lowell (Wells) Nevill Appointed 2012

Ali Zarabi Appointed March 2001

Town Council
Yakir Lubowsky Liaison
JanJun
Town Council
Brett Hamby
Liaison
JulDec

2
 2016 Permit Applications

Zoning
23%
Architectural Review
(COA)
Sign
51% 8%
Right of Way
8%
Planning (BLZ, BZA, SDP,
7% SUP, ZMA)
3%
Building

3
4
5
 I hope you can still walk down the street and see the smiles on
everybodys faces and feel the sense of community.
Hannah, Age 13

6
7
8
OLD TOWN
WARRENTON
Crossroads of the past. Destination of the future.
Community Vision Priorities Total Votes
Tax credits and incentives for renovating buildings 27
Create arts and entertainment destination (e.g. 82 Main to mini Torpedo Factory) 27
One-way streets (creating a square from Main and Lee) 20
New high-density residential 20
Longer store hours (nights and weekends) 19
Better use of the Mosby House 18
Investigate why targeted businesses don't locate here (diversity) 17
Encourage 2nd and 3rd floor residential 14
Attract family-friendly retail 13
Pedestrian mall in Old Town (restrict car traffic during specific times) 13
Boutique hotels and B&Bs 12
Create a pedestrian promenade 10
Indoor/outdoor arts facility 9
Increase and widen sidewalks 8
Beautification on and off Main Street 8
Visitor center in Old Town with public restrooms 8
Create a convenience market 7
Painted horses/foxes (public art) 7
Green and sustainable development 7
Creative parking solutions 7
(Government) incentives to create residential density and redevelopment 7
Lower speed limit 6
Retain youth through technology (e.g. WIFI) 6
Relocate service sector off Main Street 6
Parking garage 5
Bury the powerlines 5
Wire factory redevelopment 4
Unified marketing campaign 4
Food trucks in Old Town 4
Year-round Farmers Market 4
Recruit youth and diversity volunteers 4
Public bicycles 3
Make history real 2
Accentuate/promote historic buildings, marketing 2
Downloadable app to make downtown more walkable 2
Public plaza by Public Library 1
Infill shopping mall development 1
(Increased) Two-way communication about smart growth 1
Wayfinding signage 1
9


The skys the limit, what are the things you want
Old Town to be known for in five years?

Kathy La Plante
National Main Street Center

10


historical Friendly fun Charming Vibrant interesting walking bike

bustling Thriving Unique Destination Beautiful Historic Family Alive Quaint Lively

11
12