Warrenton Planning Commission packet May 17, 2016

8/17/2019 Warrenton Planning Commission packet May 17, 2016

1/111


2/111

AGENDA

PLANNING COMMISSIONTOWN OF WARRENTON

May 17, 20167:00 PM

1. Call to order and establishment of a quorum.

2. Approval of Minutes – February 16, 2016 and March 15, 2016.

3. Public Hearing

A. Commission Permit #01-2016: Dog Park – Discussion of an application to locate a dog park, to

be operated by the Town of Warrenton, at the end of the Fifth Street Parking lot (GPIN 6984-42-3052-000) per Article 11-3.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The dog park would be approximately

.36 acre in size and would consist of fencing and gates, a water fountain, benches, and signage.Improvements for drainage are anticipated on the adjacent property owned by the Town (GPIN

6984-42-2290-000). The Future Conceptual Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan indicatesthat the property is identified for public/semi-public non-intensive use, which is suitable for park

use. The applicant and property owner is the Town of Warrenton.

B. Town Code Amendment – Condition of Premises. – This is an amendment to Section 8-63 of

the Notice to Cut Weeds to add language on the development status of the property and indicate

overgrown properties could be considered a nuisance. The applicant is the Town of Warrenton.

C. Town Code Amendment – Mobile Food Vendors – Discussion of proposed amendments toSection 9-69 (d) of the Itinerant Merchant regulations that would allow mobile food vendors to

locate on specified properties within certain areas per the Mobile Food Vendor Policy andProcedures document through the Town Manager’s office. The applicant is the Town of

Warrenton.

D. ZTA 16-01 – Mobile Food Vendors. – Discussion of proposed amendments to the Public Semi-

Public, Commercial and Central Business Districts, and Industrial District in Articles 3-4.9.2(PSP), 3-4.10.2 (C), 3-4.11.2 (CBD), 3-4.12.2 (I) and Article 12 - Definitions of the Zoning

Ordinance to add mobile food vendor as a use with the condition that the site must meet the

requirements of the Mobile Food Vendor Policy and Procedures document through the TownManager’s office. The applicant is the Town of Warrenton.

E. ZTA 16-02 – Central Business District (CBD) – Discussion of proposed amendments to add to

Articles 3-4.11.2 and 3-4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to add hotels, bed and breakfast, inns andtourist homes to allowable uses in the Central Business District (CBD). The applicant is the

Town of Warrenton.

4. Old Business

5. Adjourn


3/111

MINUTESPLANNING COMMISSIONTOWN OF WARRENTON

February 16, 2016 – 7:00 P.M.

The regular meeting of the Town of Warrenton Planning Commission convened on Tuesday, February16, 2016 at 7:00 PM in the Municipal Building.

The following members were present: Dr. John Harre, Chairman; Ms. Brandie Schaeffer, Vice-

Chairman; Ms. Susan Helander; Mr. John Kip; Mr. Lowell Nevill; and Mr. Brett Hamby. Ms. SarahSitterle, Director of Planning and Community Development represented staff. Mr. Ali Zarabi and Mr.Yakir Lubowsky, Ex-Officio member, were absent.

A quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes

Dr. Harre asked if anyone had any changes for the September 15, 2015 and January 19, 2016 minutes.

Mr. Kip made motion to approve September 15, 2015 minutes as submitted. Ms. Helander seconded

the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously (6-0).

Mr. Kip made motion to approve January 19, 2016 minutes as submitted. Mr. Nevill seconded themotion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously (6-0).

Public Hearing

• I-PUD Regulations Text Amendment – Discussion of proposed amendments to the PlannedUnit Development (PUD) regulations specific to the Industrial Planned Unit Development(I-PUD) overlay district.

The proposal would modify the minimum standards to allow for a revised land use mix, a change inthe uses, and addition of a waiver procedure for Town requirements. Staff referred to the PUDordinances from other local jurisdictions, including the towns of Culpeper and Leesburg, Fauquier andPrince William counties, and the City of Manassas for comparison purposes. The following are somehighlights from the comparison:

• Changes to the maximum land use mix for commercial use is not standard among thecomparative ordinances. The current maximum of 35% commercial use is proposed to beincreased to a maximum of 60%.

• Changes proposed for the open space areas appear to be relatively consistent.

• No other jurisdictions have the same process for waivers of regulations.


4/111

2

• Some jurisdictions do not allow for residential uses among the industrial mixed-usedevelopment proposals.

Ms. Sitterle suggests a text change to modify “shall” to “may”, Use definitions/Use terms tweaks forconsistency, and additional discussions with the applicant to resolve the remaining items. Ms. Sitterlethen read the Staff Comments provided to Applicant:

•

On page 1 under Article 3-5.2.1, the second paragraph references Sections 3-5.4.5.3 and 3-5.4.6. It is unclear where this reference came from. There is no mention of these sections underthe 2009 Amendment or 2006 PUD regulations.

• What is the impact of the mixed-use residential component? How much would be consideredcommercial use? How much is residential? The amendment proposes to remove the 10%maximum cap on apartments.

• What is the impact of residential use?

° The proposed text amendment suggests a change from a maximum 15% residential

use/mixed-use residential to a maximum of 35% residential use/mixed-use residential,resulting in a 20% increase.

• Drive through facilities are considered a permissible use in all other applicable districts with a

Special Use Permit – this proposed change would make drive through facilities by-right

• Internal setbacks may be reduced to 0 feet with an approved waiver, per the proposed Section3-5.2.10.5 (waiver/modification provisions for PUDs).

• The proposed waiver/modification provisions under Section 3-5.2.10.5 would allow for awaiver of Subdivision, Zoning Ordinance and other Town requirements (presumably the PFMand other ordinances such as the Town Code).

° This would also allow for a waiver or modification to the sign regulations in Article 6,which could change the size, number, orientation, location, functionality and design ofsignage.

• The waiver/modification requests may not be common. There is concern that this waiver process may replace a function of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with variance requestsrelated to setbacks.

Mr. John Foote, representing F&R Development and the Springer Properties, said his intentions werenot to create a modification for all PUDs. The rezoning application will follow this text amendment because lately they have found jurisdictions prefer having text against which to evaluate the zoning. Itwas also concluded through meetings with Ms. Sitterle and Mr. Whitson Robinson that because the proposed development is more consistent with the uses in the I-PUD than with the C-PUD, the proposed I-PUD amendments are smaller than the amendments needed to fit under a C-PUD. It madesense to stay with the I-PUD and consider amendments.

Mr. Foote went on to discuss the reasons why the I-PUD rezoning made sense for the town. He thenasked the members of the Planning Commission to consider tabling any action until after the meetingnext week between Ms. Sitterle, Mr. Robinson and himself to clarify the language of the I-PUD.

Ms. Schaeffer asked how this text amendment was doing in terms of timing. Mr. Robinson stated thathe and Ms. Sitterle are concerned with timing. Although they would like to move forward, delaying theCommission vote until the next meeting should allow sufficient time to meet and ensure agreement on proposed amendments. Dr. Harre reiterated the criteria that Mr. Nevill brought up, which requireconsideration with this text amendment, such as the impact on schools and Public Utilities.


5/111

3

Mr. Robinson responded, while the town does not handle school issues, the town has been veryconscientious about having a good relationship with the county and talking to supervisors in the pastabout the impact of residential zoning for areas not originally zoned residential. Ms. Schaeffer thoughtthis decision should be made at the Town Council level.

Ms. Schaeffer asked Ms. Sitterle for a preference on the best process to get the remaining concerns andwaivers resolved within the allocated timeline. Ms. Sitterle believed that with the meeting between set

for next week; staff should be able to bring the text amendment back next month.

Mr. Kip motioned that the I-PUD Regulations Text Amendment be brought back to the March 15,2016 meeting. Ms. Schaeffer seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passedunanimously (6-0).

New Business

• Urban Development Area Grant – Consideration of a motion to recommend the Town

Council accept from the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning andInvestment a grant for technical on-call consultant services in the amount of $65,000 from the

Urban Development Area (UDA) program.

Ms. Denise Harris, Senior Planner, Planning and Community Development Department, made thePlanning Commission aware of a funding opportunity for updating the comprehensive plan. The staffhas been exploring funding opportunities to leverage limited town resources. The first opportunity to present itself is through the Virginia Secretary of Transportation Office of Intermodal Planning andInvestment’s UDA grant program. This program was enabled by Virginia Code §2.2-229, to offergrants for professional planning consultant assitance to local governments and regional entities toestablish and support UDAs. This funding opportunity is an award for technical assistance in the formof direct on-call consultant support to assist local governments in one or more of the following:

•

Plan for and designate at least one urban/billage development area in their comprehensive plan,• Revise as appropriate applicable land use of ordinances (including appropriate zoning

classifications and subdivision ordinances) to incorporate the principles of traditionalneghborhood design (see §15.2-2223.1 of the Code of Virginia) and

• Assist with public participation processes, and other related tasks.

The Town is a natural fit for this grant program as it is already designated as a Service district forFauquier County and the majority of the Town’s current zoning already meets the desired densityoutlined in the state code. In addition, the Town’s goals of walkability and traditional neighborhooddesign have been in place for over twenty-five years. An additional benefit to UDA designation is thatthe Town would become eligible for HB2 transportation funds. Currently, the only projects eligible for

HB2 funds are associated with a Corridors of Statewide Significance (i.e. U.S. Route 29); those thataddress capacity needs on regional networks (i.e. I-66); and improvements to support UDAs. A UDAdesignation would enable the Town of compete for HB2 funds beyond projects associated with U.S.Route 29.

The Town successfully applied to the UDA grant program and was awarded $65,000 with no matchrequired. If the Town chooses to proceed, staff will work with the assigned consultant team to scope


6/111

4

the project into the overall comprehensive plan process, thus potentially lowering the resources needsof the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Ms. Brandie Schaffer made a motion to recommend to the Town Council that the Town of Warrentonaccept the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment grant fortechnical on-call consultant services in the amount of $65,000 from the Urban Development Area program. Mr. John Kip seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed (6-0).

Work Session

• 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (DRAFT) – Six-year program of publicimprovements to coordinate infrastructure, available financial resources and the WarrentonComprehensive Plan. This is the draft listing of projects for the new program.

The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the coming year represents a significant investment inTown infrastructure. It is a six-year, 2017-2022 term, scheduling of municipal projects. The draft program is compiled by staff from requests and recommendations by each of the operating departmentsin the Town, which include Planning, Public Works, Utility, Police, Recreation, and Fire/Rescue

departments. The proposed projects are coordinated with available funding and reasonable prospectsfor implementation in the requested year with regard to availability of property, design, and otherfactors. Projects are assembled based on staging and prospective implementation to maximize theeffectiveness and coordination of the program. Some of the projects were drawn from suggestions inthe 2000-2025 Comprehensive Plan, such as the timing and expansion of Town infrastructure.

The Planning Commission is the first forum for review of the program and its projects, and began itsreview last fall with the review of the previous program and the identification of projects for the new program. This insures that those involved in the future development of the community and thecomprehensive planning of that future has the opportunity to assess the viability of projects thatcomprise the program. Both public and private infrastructure improvements are required to be

reviewed by the Planning Commission as advisors to the Town for the coordination of future planningand development. Projects for the draft CIP have been reveiwed by Town Council committees forinclusion and justification.

Dr. Harre asked each department head to go over the projects for this year, provide justification, andanswer any questions the commission may have.

PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIESMr. Paul Bernard, Assistant Director, Public Works/Utilities reviewed the summary sheet thatidentifies $2.1 million dollars of capital improvements for Public Utilities. He went on to describe thefour main items for Public Works. The first item is the Water Treatment Plant Physical Plant

Expansion at a cost of $511.837 to add a new a chemical building, allowing the storage of chemicals ina safer manner and improving efficiency. The new building would accommodate the transition fromchlorine gas to chlorine liquid.

The second item is the Sewer Line Rehabilitation Program, which is necessary because the system has been under stress for a long time from infiltration and inflow. There has been some flow monitoring, but Public Works/Utilities needs to proceed into more issolation work to identify key areas to target forrehabilitation at a cost of $800,000.


7/111

5

The third item, which is currently under review with the Virginia Department of Health, is theactivation of Well #3 for $415,000. The well is located at the end of Academy Hill Road near thewastewater station. This well has been retired for a period of time and it needs to be brought online asit would provide about 300 gallons a minute. The well was taken off-line because of some radionuclides that were present in the water, which can removed with a proposed treatment process.

The fourth item is the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement for $175,000. The current process

involves rotating biological contactors that have been in service for a long time. These are large discsthat carry a media and a biogrowth that circulate around on a shaft. The shafts are starting to breakdown and need to be replaced. New technology is available for the denitrification process so the proposal is to modify the Wastewater Treatment Plant to include a moving bed bioreactor (MBBR)system that will replace the current process while improving treatment levels.

Mr. Bernard then presented the Public Works summary sheet of capital improvements totaling$809,900. The first item is Broadview Avenue for $10,000 that initially represented the Town’s 2% feewith VDOT, covering the remaining balance under the HB2 Program. However that funding is notlooking good because of state-wide significance, so other funding mechanisms such as revenue shareare being considered. The $10,000 is a place holder to keep the project alive until funding is found.

Next item is a Traffic Signal for the intersection of Falmouth Street and East Shirley Avenue, nearWalmart. There is an application for 50% VDOT Revenue Sharing in process, which would bring thecost down to $217,000. Funding from Walmart still needs to be locked-up. The first portion of fundingavailable from Walmart is from proffers with an additional $60,000 when the traffic impacts aredemonstrated to be a result of Walmart activities. There is a traffic consultant we are working with to provide information to Walmart so we can claim our money to offset the cost of a traffic signal.

Ms. Schaeffer commented that funding from the Walmart proffer was brought to their attention by anapplicant through a rezoning. She asked Mr. Bernard if there had been a concerted effort to identifyany other situations sitting out there where the town was proffered money for transportation

improvements that subsequently were not used. Mr. Bernard replied that he was not aware of any other proffered monies, but would certainly be willing to investigate.

There is a Drainage Improvement project for $125,400 that has been needed for pipe deteriorations atthe intersection of Cleveland Street and East Shirley Avenue and running diagonally through thechurch parking lot. This drains a fairly good area of the town and is inadequate in size along with itsdeterioration.

Next is a Truck Scale for the shop at $70,000. This is to help tie street sweeping into the storm-water permitting criteria for nutrient removal. This requires that the town document the amount of streetsweeping to help make the case.

Ms. Schaeffer then asked about the location of Parking Lot E on the list for $48,500 of improvements.Mr. Bernard replied that Parking Lot E is located behind the Post Office, which currently has somefairly good sized ruts from surface runoff because the drainage system is not functioning.

POLICE DEPARMENTChief Louis Battle, Town of Warrenton Police Department, presented four items totaling $412,913 forthe Police Department. The first item is the replacement of three (3) high-mileage police cruisers for$215,727. The fleet averages 9 years old and 90,000 miles. The vehicles being replaced are: a 2004


8/111

6

Crown Victoria with 108,000 miles; a 2004 Crown Victoria with 110,000 miles; and a 2008 CrownVictoria with 84,000 miles that was lost when it was transferred over to the new IT Director’s position.Funding includes equipping vehicles with laptops, wireless camera systems, first aid, and emergencyequipment.

The second item is for the P25 Compliant Radio System Upgrade which is actually a placeholder as itwill soon be coming online for the county. The town’s portion is $185,656 and could come due

anytime in the next three years. The P25 Compliant Radio System Upgrade is a new $13 to $16 milliondollar system and our portion covers the replacement of all vehicle radios and some handheld radios.

The third item is Base Mobile Server/Field reporting Upgrade for $3,828 that covers the licensing for a block of 5 laptops. With the purchase of the three vehicles with laptops, we will exceed the currentlicensing so we need to cover the licensing for those laptops.

The fourth and final item is $7,720 for the VA Supreme Court Citation Data Software that will allowwireless upload of citations written using vehicle laptops. While this will be a convenience for now, itwill soon be a requirement for all municipalities using the e-Summons System.

PARKS & RECREATIONMs. Margaret Rice, Director of Parks & Recreation provided information on eight items totaling$1,190.258. The Warrenton Aquatic & Recreation Factility (WARF) opened in 2007 and has beganreplacing and refurbishing some of the equipment this year. The first item is $35,000 to replace someof the original equipment that is heavily used with an estimated life-cycle of five years, but which has been in place from the beginning. Next year we would like to refurbish the Woodway Treadmills andadd Arc Trainers. The Arc Trainers would add a new dimension to what is offered and clientele thatthe WARF is trying to attract. There are some world-class runners using the facility now and one is anOlympic hopeful who has brought ESPN to the facility to film her.

WARF Facility Upgrades for $49,500 to improve the facility and service. This item includes the

installation of a permanent wall between the classroom and fitness room. Currently there is atemporary wall that moves when someone bumps into it. The other is replacing the touch-pads for thetiming system as they have gone beyond their life cycle and the manufacturer will not service themnext year because they are so old. We also would like to put a fence with gate around the trash area behind the WARF because what is there does not work and allows trash to blow around. Surveillancecamera upgrades as those are used all the time. Also to switch from paper towels to hand dryers withthe expectation to recoup investment in about three years along with being environmentally friendly.

The next project is a Micro Golf Course that the Recreation Committee has been investigating. Itwould be located to the left-side of the WARF so existing staff can manage it. Patrons would come tothe frontdesk, purchase their game and receive the ball and club, then exit through the left-side door.

Micro Golf is like mini-golf and we would like to phase that in over two years. The first year cost of$50,000 would be for design, installation of fence and the first 9 holes with the second year adding thesecond 9 holes at $35,000.

Mr. Nevill and Mrs. Schaeffer questioned the feasability of a Micro Golf Course that was notmentioned in the Comprehensive plan or from a citizen survey. Ms. Schaeffer stated golf is a sport thatis dying fast with country clubs having problems staying open and the county has taken this off theirParks iniative feeling without a demand for someone to privately install Putt Putt Golf then it will probabally not generate enough revenue to cover associated maintenance costs. Ms. Rice suggested


9/111

7

checking with Larry as they are planning to install with the pool at the Marshall Center. Mrs. Schaeffersaid she was at Marshall’s last Park Board Meeting and it was removed from their project list citingmaintenance and inability to find any public sector investment. Mr. Nevill and Mrs. Schaeffer feelwithout some sort of survey from the citizens survey or ranking/understanding, this sort of popped outof nowhere without being mentioned in the comprehensive plan and moved to the top of the list. Ms.Rice responded that there was not a Parks section in the comprehensive plan, which is why they are soexcited to become a part of it as the last time the comprehensive plan was updated there was not a

Parks & Recreation Department for the Town because the WARF just opened and the parks weremanaged by the county. The Recreation Committee has been looking for ideas to generate revenue andwhile there has not been a formal survey, they have been talking to other Parks Departments that havethem and in general all report positive results. Staff has been actively talking with youth in thecommunity to see if there was interest and results have been positive. That stated, it is there for yourconsideration and any feedback is appreciated and welcome.

The next item is Vehicle Replacement at a cost of $27,000. The vehicle being replaced is 20 years oldand the police department and public works had it prior, but because of reliability issues it was passedon to the Parks Department. The check engine light stays on and it does not have heat or airconditioning, but they are grateful to have had something other than personal vehicles. Since it is

getting to the end of its life, they would like to replace it with a new vehicle.

Timber Fence Trail is in the CIP because an application has been filed for a VDOT TAP grant, whichcould fund 80% of this project. If the grant is received, the Town would pay expenses for the projectand be reimbursed for the 80%. Fauquier County has committed to half of the remaining fundingleaving the Town’s net commitment at $91,876. While it does seem unlikely we will get this grantfunding, we have kept it on the list until the grant final determination letters come out mid-June.

Mr. Kip remarked that the Planning Commission was familiar with the Timber Fence Trail as it wasdiscussed about three years ago when it was not in the CIP. He understands the funding is high, butknows this is a project the community has been wanting that would benefit many citizens so it needs to

be considered instead of the Micro Golf.

Ms. Rice said this is a project she would like to see completed, but given the lack of funding it does notlook promising because it is so large. Completing this project in phases would be difficult since thetrail would need to run from the WARF across wetlands, across Fauquier High School property,around the athletic fields and through woods to connect to the Timber Fence Parkway. The projectdoes not contain any fluffy items like call boxes. Fauquier County has committed $91,876 (10%)toward this project. Ms. Rice says she is open to any funding suggestions.

The Depot Park is the next item for $50,000 and would be located behind the Town’s former traindepot. They asked for a phased approach to get all the elements discussed during the concept stage that

went through the Recreation Committee. The money in the out years would possibly add a restroom.

Parking for Soccer Fields at $20,000 would cover the improvements such as adding gravel to the areaoff of US Route 211. They are trying to accommodate as many cars as possible because there is a parking problem at the WARF every weekend and they want to exist peacefully especially with thehockey league gaining in popularity.

Ms. Schaeffer asked if the leagues had been asked to assist by scheduling the games further apart,thinking this would help alleviate the overcrowding of the parking area. Ms. Rice responded that she


10/111

8

has reached out to the leagues without any success and will definitely address when it comes time torenegotiate the lease that has four years remaining. The leagues have taken the financial responsibilityfor maintaining the fields and offer a great service for the local children and families. Ms. Rice alsomentioned the overflow parking available at the high school that is advertised via large signs duringthe weekend, but many families do not want to use the overflow parking.

The last item is Fields Trail Completion for $40,000 that would finish asphalt paving of a ¼ mile

portion of the trail loop that goes around the soccer fields. As Mr. Kip knows as a user, a portion of thetrail is still gravel and would be nice to have one surface. Mr. Kip asked if there was any way theycould get a Boy Scout to revitalize the signs put in five years ago that have been knocked down. Ms.Rice said she was sure she could find someone to take on that project.

• Update on the Comprehensive Plan – Ms. Denise Harris’s update on the RFP Work Groupmeeting and status of the process.

Ms. Harris began by prefacing the Comprehensive Plan update would be an ongoing conversation. Asstated at the last Planning Commission meeting on January 19, 2016, she would be presenting theWork Group’s recommendations. The Work Group developed and considered an exhaustive list of

comprehensive plan deliverables. The Work Group was surveyed on their priorities to determine itemswere “essential” to the comprehensive plan update or not deemed as “essential” by a majority of thosesurveyed. The Attachment I of the Staff Report for the Planning Commission, dated February 12,2016, contains the Work Group Essential Scoping Items and Prioritization Survey percentages fromeach theme.

At the conclusion of the Work Group activities, the members stressed the overall importance that, intheir opinion, the scope emphasizes demographics, housing, public utilities, economic resources,design, and multi-modal transportation. It was expressed that the comprehensive plan should continueto be aspirational in nature with a vision that is forward reaching in terms of goals and strategies.Finally, the Work Group strongly recommended the comprehensive plan emphasize data and

implementation components to enhance Knowledge-Based Governance.

The 2016 Timeline for the Comprehensive Plan Update is as follows:

• MARCH – Presentation to Town Council on scoping and resources needs for thecomprehensive plan update.

• APRIL / MAY – Town Council Work Sessions and Budget adoption.

• MAY / JUNE – Comprehensive Plan Request for Proposal is drafted based on budget

and released.

• JUNE / AUGUST – Comprehensive Plan proposals accepted finalist interviews,scoping negotiations, and final contract award.

•

LATE SUMMER – Comprehensive Plan work launched with consultant team.

Ms. Harris shared she is starting the public engagement process now. During the month of March shewill be going to all the schools in Warrenton to ask students (Kindergarten – 12 th grade) what theyvalue most, what are their favorite places, and what would they like in the future. Come April she isexpecting to get back hundreds of responses and will try to do a presentation possibly tied to some sortof large event in the community. The point being to share the student provided information then tell the


11/111

9

adults it is their turn to provide input. The public engagement starts now while working with consultantteam will begin late summer.

The next step is for the Planning Commission to have a discussion about what you think came out ofthe Work Group. Do you agree with it? Are there things that give you concern? Are there things thatyou see missing? And again this is an ongoing conversation so we do not need to solve everythingtonight as the RFP will not be going out for a few more months, but I wanted to provide you with an

update and get your thoughts.

Mr. Nevill commented how he liked the use of Survey Monkey and a few artfully designed questionsto gather useful information. Ms. Harris replied that when she is ready for the presentation to thecommunity she would like to have a survey ready to go for the community. She will also be askingdepartment heads and the Planning Commission if there are questions they want the community toanswer, which will help her to refine the survey for the community.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM.

Minutes Submitted by Karen Kowalski.

Minutes Approved on _________________.


12/111

1

MINUTESPLANNING COMMISSIONTOWN OF WARRENTONMarch 15, 2016 – 7:00 P.M.

The regular meeting of the Town of Warrenton Planning Commission convened on Tuesday,March 15, 2016 at 7:00 PM in the Municipal Building.

The following members were present: Dr. John Harre, Chair; Ms. Brandie Schaeffer, Vice-Chair;Mr. John Kip; Mr. Ali Zarabi; Mr. Lowell Nevill; Ms. Susan Helander, and Mr. Brett Hamby.

Ms. Sarah Sitterle, Director of Planning and Community Development represented staff.

A Quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes

Dr. John Harre recommended the following edits to the December 15, 2015 minutes:

Page 7

• The next to the last paragraph, Town Council is a quasi-judiciary function; change to theBZA is a quasi-judiciary function.

Last Page

•

Dr. Harre complimented the Catholic University students plan for the design project theycreated; change to Ali Zarabi complimented the Catholic University students.

Ms. Helander made a motion to approve the December 15, 2015 meeting minutes with therecommended amendments. Ali Zarabi seconded the motion and the motion passed.

2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (DRAFT) – Six-year program of publicimprovements to coordinate infrastructure, available financial resources and the WarrentonComprehensive Plan.

Brannon Godfrey, the Town Manager, thanked the Chairman and addressed the Commission togive an introduction. He said the work session in February gave some very good suggestions onways to improve on the details provided in the CIP, which was incorporated into the draft. Thereare improved descriptions about the projects as well as location maps to identify where theimprovements are proposed. Also added is a funds source page for the budget year FY2017.


13/111

2

The only dollar change made to the draft considered at the work session was the addition of a firedepartment capital contribution for their apparatus, a $150,000 request. It was in the operating budget, but was put into the CIP because the apparatus’s long life qualifies it as a capital item.The budget amount for year FY2017, $1.339 million, is likely to change before therecommended budget is submitted to Council to balance revenues with expenditures. At the closeof the last fiscal year, there was about a million dollars in surplus. The Town Manager explainedthat he would not want to exceed that amount in terms of how much is included with the capital

budget for next year because capital improvement projects are not funded with debt, but are cashfunded projects. This concluded the introduction. Mr. Godfrey asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Nevill asked if he could address the realignment of the fund structure in the past coupleyears, from the parks and recreation fund and the relationship of the rainy day fund. Does it haveany impact on what’s available for CIP related projects?

Mr. Godfrey said it may have been last year when there was a separate recreation fund. Now it’sall in the general fund. Recreation capital projects are in the CIP under general fund, as shown on page 11 at the bottom of the left hand column. This current fiscal year, next year, and goingforward, they will be handled as general fund capital projects. Capital Improvements don’t

follow year-to-year trends; there can be equipment expenditures one year and not the next.

Mr. Kip asked if there was information on the grant for the Timber Fence trail.

Mr. Godfrey did not think the Town was going to receive it, but there would be plans to reapplyif unsuccessful.

Public Hearing

Dr. Harre called the Public Hearing to order and asked if there was anyone who wished tocomment on any of the items in the CIP. No one came forward to speak and Dr. Harre closed the

Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m.

Mr. Nevill asked if the department had a chance to address questions/comments from the lastmeeting or if there was additional information on items like the issues regarding parks andrecreation and the Micro Golf Course.

Margaret Rice, Director of Parks and Recreation answered questions and said the Micro GolfCourse had been discussed at the recreation committee, but there was some question as to whowas for it and against it. She said that it may be moved forward. Ms. Schaeffer thanked her forthe work that she has done and said it will help them to make good decisions going forward.

Mr. Nevill asked if the Commission had talked about the well proposed for the Alwington property. He asked if it was one of the wells that were going to be activated.

Mr. Bo Tucker, Director of Public Works and Utilities said wells three and four are abandoned orinactive town wells. Alwington proposed the postage stamp for a well and funds to develop theirwell or bring other wells online. Mr. Tucker does not plan on bringing the well online. There aremany people on that side of town on wells. When there is a drought you have to water, butdeveloping that well would be a last resort.


14/111

3

Mr. Nevill said the other item was the water and sewer extension on Old Meetze Road for potential development.

Mr. Tucker was sure they would want the service availability and will use it for development ofthe property. Once the line is there, availability fees are $17,000, so no one is clamoring for it.

Ms. Schaeffer said utilities are things that are under ground, and although not seen, they areimportant for economic development and quality of life. The improvements to Parking Lot E areabove ground. From a Planning Commission standpoint, it would be helpful to put parking lotsand sidewalks in the CIP.

Mr. Nevill said Denise Harris spoke at the last meeting about the eligibility for that within theUrban Development Area grant.

Ms. Schaeffer asked Mr. Bernard if he had any comments.

Mr. Paul Bernard, Assistant Director of Public Works and Utilities, said the House Bill 2 funding

was not going to happen right now because no funds are available. We will apply for it again thisyear. The scoring will be a little different so we hope that will increase eligibility.

A discussion was then held regarding the intersection at Broadview Avenue. Mr. Nevill asked ifVDOT does a periodic study on the intersection. Mr. Tucker said he believes every other yearthat a study is conducted.

Mr. Zarabi made a motion to approve the Capital Improvement Program draft for FY 2017-2022.Ms. Helander seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 7-0.

Old Business

I-PUD Regulations Text Amendment – Discussion of proposed amendments to the PlannedUnit Development regulations specific to the Industrial PUD overlay district.

Dr. Harre stated there was also a public hearing last month.

One idea Ms. Schaeffer had while reading and preparing for the Planning Commission, from theStatement of Justification, suggestions from the Director of Economic Development, and theexchanges back and forth, they continue to reference the property as a mixed use development.Much of the mix of uses within the industrial district starts to compromise the intent of the code.The intent of the code is to remain industrial, and this is starting to water it down. There has beensome information presented to the Commission that shows most of the industrial district has businesses currently operating with existing commercial uses. Ms. Schaeffer wondered if theTown’s industrial zoning currently was serving us in any way. As we move forward with thezoning text amendment, there is concern by Mr. Nevill and myself that the Statement ofJustification references the plan. Ms. Schaeffer wondered how the Commission starts to evaluatethe zoning text amendment while not running them concurrently.


15/111

4

She went on to say that Mr. Foote talked about that at the last meeting, how we can do that eitherway. We can do the text amendment first and then the application can fit into that. I wouldencourage the staff and the applicant to work with the current application so that we canunderstand the implications of the text amendment as well as looking at this as a mixed usedistrict rather than trying to make so many changes to the existing I-PUD that it becomessomething it was never intended. The Chairman had suggested the potential of rezoning this to acommercial district rather than an industrial district. That was another reason proposing the idea

for discussion tonight, that maybe it’s neither a commercial district nor an industrial district, it’struly a mixed use proposal. Unlike other districts, including Fauquier County, we do not have amixed use zoning category for people to apply under. This may be an opportunity to take thattitle away and say we’re looking at a mixed use code.

She said to the Town Attorney, Whit Robinson, that the Commission is struggling with whetherthis should be a rezoning to commercial. Ms. Schaeffer asked whether the changes to the I-PUDmove too far away with the intent of an industrial district or if they were looking at a new coderunning concurrently with this application to see what it looks like. It also presents a new codemoving forward that better achieves the comprehensive plan goal of creating a mixed useenvironment. She asked the Town Attorney whether the Commission would be creating any

complications on his end for a new zoning district.

Mr. Robinson indicated that he will do what the Commission asks him to do in terms of how it isdetermined to go forward. The question is going to be timing more than anything and workingwith the applicant on timing issues. What we have are text amendments, which apply toeverything, and the application is coming along. He indicated he had been thinking about whichway the Commission may want to go. If you want to continue to go with a rezoning, whether it’sthe I-PUD, C-PUD, or a new zoning district, he wondered if the Commission wanted theapplication to come along with the amendment. Right now they are separate. He noted that thetext amendments were before the Commission and they can make adjustments as they relate tothe zoning districts that are left. If the Commission wishes to go a different route, with a new

rezoning, let’s say commercial and then add a C-PUD overlay, he noted that could be donetogether.

He added that this could be handled any way the Commission wanted. If rezoned a different way,with a new zoning district in its entirety, it would take longer. Each area will have different legalramifications as to whether it is considered down zoning or up zoning. The applicant may becomfortable with what we already have in terms of commercial with a C-PUD, as long it’srunning concurrently. If consecutively, it will take longer. These are the different options.

Ms. Schaeffer suggested going through and seeing what the proposal and text amendmentactually mean. She went through it and found that some of the changes were minimal. What doesthe text actually mean, in numbers, for different town properties? With this new matrix, some ofthe concerns discussed in the last meeting are not there.

Mr. Robinson said perhaps mixed use is something the Commission wants to do, that an overallapproach should be taken when it comes to the town. He indicated that was the Commission’s prerogative to look at those options. In terms of dealing with these text amendments, which it isknown that it will affect different parcels other than the one with the application, try to keep in


16/111

5

mind the timing of those two things. It may sway you one way or another as far as which way togo. The timing may not be what the applicant wants, but you have a larger picture to look at.

Ms. Schaeffer believed that is something that gets lost, the fact that changing the text doesn’tnecessarily change the other properties. Those properties still have to go through a rezoning. Shenoted that the Commission would still have to comment on them and approve them. It doesn’tautomatically grant them this right. It just says that if they get a rezoning, they will also be

subject to these percentages.

Mr. Robinson said that you may end up with text amendments to those applications as well.

Dr. Harre said the town may be put in a bind if it approves 35% residential for this area andsomeone wants something with similar water and sewer impacts. He noted that 35% residentialis more than the applicant requires and the Town may be committed to something it cannot provide later on.

Mr. Robinson suggested keeping in mind that an SUP is an SUP for a reason. It is not by-right.That’s why you take a look at different parcels and differentiate. You take into account public

health and welfare. Just because one person gets an SUP doesn’t mean everyone gets one. That iswhy they have to keep coming forward.

Mr. Zarabi said his daughter, while talking about the Walker Drive project, as much as she likedshopping said, “this project doesn’t seem consistent with Warrenton.” He was wondering if thiswas an opportunity for us to talk about how this project relates to this piece of land anddevelopable properties across the street.

Mr. Robinson said that is one of the things that you are required to look at, what the neighboring parcels are like. With this particular project there is a lot of office nearby.

Dr. Harre asked if the Commission wanted to discuss this in detail, whether it meets thecomprehensive plan, or should they take it from a broader standpoint asking if this the correctway to go. It seems like more of a C-PUD. At the last meeting Mr. Foote said they wouldconsider other ideas.

Mr. Nevill believed they should go with the proposal in front of the Commission. We’ve hadquestions about the various wordings and what has been agreed on. The last staff analysis gaveus the grading scale from the ordinance. We have to use that grading scale.

Ms. Schaeffer said staff has included here that the Comprehensive Plan encourages flexibility tomeet traditional design standards and promote economic development. There are also commentsfrom Heather Stinson, Economic Development Manager encouraging flexibility and mixed usedevelopment for economic opportunity.

Discussion was held regarding the I-PUD, the Comprehensive Plan, what percentages the landuses should be, and whether or not to adjust the ratios.

Jessica Pfeiffer, representing Mr. Foote as well as the applicant, addressed the Commission. Shesaid the applicant is okay with looking at a new district, perhaps a mixed use district. On the


17/111

6

rezoning application, there are multiple documents with it for review including a traffic impactanalysis, water and sewer impacts, and design guidelines. They are willing to look into a mixeduse district if that makes it more comfortable.

Dr. Harre said they are having trouble justifying the I-PUD in relationship to the ordinance andthe comprehensive plan.

Mr. Robinson said if it is the desire of the Planning Commission to take a look at that, staffwould be happy to meet with the applicant in the next week or two to work out some of theseissues and present them at the next meeting to not hold things up.

Mr. Nevill said it’s the same question. You’re looking for different means by which to requestthat a majority of the property have some other use other than the by right industrial.

Ms. Pfeiffer said that is correct.

Mr. Nevill expressed his concern that it’s going to be the same later.

Ms. Pfeiffer said one of the documents being are worked on now is a Physical Impact Analysis, because there is a need for the proposed development and they will bring that in with theirrezoning to show there is a need for their proposal.

Dr. Harre’s concern is that it impacts this one parcel and not the entire one hundred some acresof industrial land. What happens in the future when people want to put in 35% residential?

Ms. Schaeffer said if they do mixed use it impacts the entire town.

Further discussion was held regarding the I-PUD, the comprehensive plan, flexibility, and landuse percentages. The importance of the parcel in consideration was also discussed.

Dr. Harre inquired whether anyone wished to make a motion.

Mr. Zarabi made a motion to approve ZTA 15-02 with the following amendments:

• 20% Residential

•

30% Commercial

• 50% Industrial

Mr. Kip seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 7-0.

Dr. Harre said there is no work session next Tuesday. He then asked for an update on CubeSmart.

Ms. Sitterle explained the meeting with the building team regarding Cube Smart. Cube Smartwill be submitting architectural renderings on the proposed changes.

A discussion was then held regarding Cube Smart.


18/111

7

The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Minutes were approved on ________.


19/111


20/111


21/111


22/111


23/111


24/111


25/111


26/111


27/111


28/111


29/111


30/111


31/111


32/111


33/111


34/111


35/111


36/111


37/111


38/111


39/111


40/111


41/111


42/111


43/111


44/111


45/111


46/111


47/111


48/111


49/111


50/111


51/111


52/111


53/111


54/111


55/111


56/111


57/111


58/111


59/111


60/111


61/111


62/111


63/111


64/111


65/111


66/111


67/111


68/111


69/111


70/111


71/111


72/111


73/111


74/111


75/111


76/111


77/111


78/111


79/111


80/111


81/111


82/111


83/111


84/111


85/111


86/111


87/111


88/111


89/111


90/111


91/111


92/111

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT

STAFF REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING

DATE OF HEARING: May 17, 2016

PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DEADLINE: August 19, 2016TOWN COUNCIL DECISION DEADLINE: May 17, 2017

SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment – Condition of Premises

PURPOSE: This is an amendment to Section 8-63 of the Notice to Cut Weeds to add

language on the development status of the property and indicate overgrown

properties could be considered a nuisance. The applicant is the Town of Warrenton.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Town staff submits to the Planning Commission for consideration amendments to

Town Code Article III: Condition of Premises, §8-63: Notice to cut weeds. The

proposed amendments would:

•

Broaden the notice to cut weeds to include additional parcels/properties.

The existing code includes “any vacant property in town” and the proposed

amendment would comprise “any occupied or vacant developed orundeveloped property in the town, including such property upon which

buildings or other improvements are located”

o The expanded notice would include more than vacant properties,

allowing Warrenton to notify and remove weeds on any property in

town.

• Expand the uses declared as a nuisance to be those that are “malodorous,”

and “other substances which might endanger the health or safety of otherresidents of the town”

o The current text includes a notice for properties that are “permitted to

become unsightly by being overgrown with grass, weeds, or other

foreign growth.”

o This addition would add malodorous nuisances, as well as specifically

mention the health and safety of residents in the code.


93/111

Town Code Amendment - Condition of PremisesPlanning Commission Public Hearing

May 17, 2016

2

• Adds a time frame for repeat notices, allowing the town to: “For purposes of

this provision, one written notice per growing season to the owner of record

of the subject property shall be considered reasonable notice.”

o

This provision allows the town to remove nuisances throughout the

growing season with one notice for the first occurrence.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the following amendments to the Town Code for the Town of

Warrenton, VA:

Sec. 8-63. - Notice to cut weeds.1

Whenever any occupied or vacant developed or undeveloped property in the town,including such property upon which buildings or other improvements are located vacant

property in the town is are permitted to become unsightly or malodorous by beingovergrown with grass, weeds, or other foreign growth, and other substances which might

endanger the health or safety of other residents of the town, all of which is herebydeclared a nuisance, and the town manager deems it necessary, the owner thereof shall be

notified in writing to cut the grass, weeds and other foreign growth on such vacant property within a reasonable time, specified in the notice. If the owner refuses to comply

with the notice, the town manager may, in his discretion, have such grass, weeds andother foreign growth on the vacant property in question cut by the agents or employees of

the town and the cost and expenses thereof shall be chargeable to and paid by the ownerof such property. If such cost and expenses are not paid by such owner, the amount shall

be assessed against the owner and such assessment shall become a lien upon the vacant property as in the case of real estate taxes and shall be collected as real estate taxes are

collected. For purposes of this provision, one written notice per growing season to the

owner of record of the subject property shall be considered reasonable notice.

(Code 1981, § 7-16)

SUGGESTED MOTIONSI move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed

amendments to Town Code Section 8-63 to the Town Council.

OR

I move that the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of the proposed

amendments to Town Code Section 8-63 to the Town Council.

OR

I move an alternative motion.

1 Additions to the Town Code are underlined in red , recommended removals have a strikethrough.


94/111


May 17, 2016

3

Table of Contents

I. PROJECT REVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 3

A. Summary of Proposed Text Changes ............................................................................. 3

B. Zoning Ordinance Intent & Comprehensive Plan Use Description ......Error!

Bookmark not defined.

C. Zoning Ordinance Criteria For Text Amendments ................................................. 3

II. ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 4

I.

PROJECT REVIEW

A. Summary of Proposed Text Changes

The requested amendments to the zoning ordinance will impact most

parcels/properties within the Town of Warrenton. The proposed amendments

would:

•

Broaden the notice to cut weeds to include additional parcels/properties.The existing code includes “any vacant property in town” and the proposed

amendment would comprise “any occupied or vacant developed orundeveloped property in the town, including such property upon which

buildings or other improvements are located”

•

Expand the uses declared as a nuisance to be those that are “malodorous,”

and “other substances which might endanger the health or safety of other

residents of the town”

• Add a time frame for repeat notices, allowing the town to: “For purposes of

this provision, one written notice per growing season to the owner of record

of the subject property shall be considered reasonable notice.”

B.

Zoning Ordinance Criteria For Text Amendments

Section 11-3.9.13 of the Town of Warrenton Zoning Ordinance if the request is for anamendment of the text of this Ordinance, the Planning Commission and Town Council

shall consider the following matters, in addition to any relevant matters included in

Section 11-3.9.12


95/111


May 17, 2016

4

Standard

1. Whether the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Analysis

The overall planning goal of the Comprehensive Plan is, “to promote and enhance the

unique setting of Warrenton while promoting the health, safety and general welfare ofits residents.” The intent of the proposed Town Code amendment is to better fit this

goal.

The proposed text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan GeneralLand Use Objective to, “To encourage good landscape design and urban beautification

in existing and new developments.” The policy associated with this objective is to:

Improve Landscaping for Existing Development and Require Adequate Landscaping

for New Development. Through updated land development regulations and the

development review process, strengthen the requirements for landscaping on

commercial sites.

Standard

2. Whether the proposed text amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of

this Ordinance.

Analysis

The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety, and generalwelfare of the public. The intent of the proposed Town Code amendment is to better

fulfill this purpose.

II. ATTACHMENTS

Proposed Town Code Amendment 1


96/111

Page 1

DRAFT TOWN CODE AMENDMENT – CONDITION OF PREMISES

April 5, 2016

ARTICLE III. - CONDITION OF PREMISES[2]

Footnotes:

--- (2) ---

State Law reference— Noxious Weed Law, Code of Virginia, § 3.1-296.11 et seq.; removal of trash,garbage, weeds, etc. from property, Code of Virginia, section 15.1-11; authority of town council to controlJohnson grass and multiflora rose, Code of Virginia, § 15.1-28.4; weeds and plants on highway rights-of-way, Code of Virginia, § 33.1-209.

Sec. 8-61. - Duty of owners, etc.

It shall be the duty of every owner or other person in charge of premises within the town, whether ornot he avails himself of the garbage and trash disposal service provided for in Articles I and II of thischapter, to keep such premises in a sanitary condition.

(Code 1981, § 7-14)

Sec. 8-62. - Notice to remove trash, garbage, etc.

Whenever the owner of any property permits trash, garbage, litter and other substances which mightendanger the health or safety of other residents of the town and town manager deems it necessary, theowner of such property shall be notified in writing to remove such garbage, refuse, litter and othersubstances on such property within a reasonable time, specified in the notice. If the owner refuses tocomply with the notice, the town manager may, in his discretion, have such trash, garbage, litter andother substances in question removed by the agents or employees of the town and the cost and expensethereof shall be chargeable to and paid by the owner of such property. If the cost and expenses are notpaid by the owner, the amount shall be assessed against the owner and such assessment shall becomea lien upon the property as in the case of taxes and levies and shall be collected as real estate taxes arecollected.

(Code 1981, § 7-15)

Sec. 8-63. - Notice to cut weeds.

Whenever any occupied or vacant developed or undeveloped property in the town, including suchproperty upon which buildings or other improvements are located vacant property in the town is arepermitted to become unsightly or malodorous by being overgrown with grass, weeds, or other foreigngrowth, and other substances which might endanger the health or safety of other residents of the town, allof which is hereby declared a nuisance, and the town manager deems it necessary, the owner thereofshall be notified in writing to cut the grass, weeds and other foreign growth on such vacant property within


97/111

Page 2

a reasonable time, specified in the notice. If the owner refuses to comply with the notice, the townmanager may, in his discretion, have such grass, weeds and other foreign growth on the vacant propertyin question cut by the agents or employees of the town and the cost and expenses thereof shall bechargeable to and paid by the owner of such property. If such cost and expenses are not paid by suchowner, the amount shall be assessed against the owner and such assessment shall become a lien uponthe vacant property as in the case of real estate taxes and shall be collected as real estate taxes are

collected. For purposes of this provision, one written notice per growing season to the owner of record ofthe subject property shall be considered reasonable notice.

(Code 1981, § 7-16)

Sec. 8-64. - Service of notice.

The notices provided for in this article shall be served personally, if possible, but if the person uponwhom personal service is to be made cannot be found in the town, such notice shall be sent, by certifiedmail, to the last known post office address of such person and proof thereof shall be taken and acceptedin lieu of personal service.

(Code 1981, § 7-17)


98/111

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTSTAFF REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING

DATE OF HEARING: May 17, 2016PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DEADLINE: August 19, 2016

TOWN COUNCIL DECISION DEADLINE: May 17, 2017

MEMO Date: May 2, 2016

To: Sarah Sitterle, Director of Community Development

From: Heather Stinson, Economic Development Manager

Re: Proposed Amendments to the Town Zoning Ordinance and Town Code

Town staff submits to the Planning Commission for consideration amendments to the zoning ordinanceand town code that would enable the following potential business uses:

Hotels, Inns, Bed & Breakfasts, and Tourist Homes —The proposed amendment wouldadd these as allowable uses in the Central Business District (CBD), which largely covers the

town’s historical district. Staff believes this use is appropriate in the CBD and if establishedmay encourage tourism in Old Town by providing overnight accommodations and drawing

visitors into Old Town for private events, such as weddings.

Food Trucks —Food trucks are a growing industry that has proven successful throughout thecountry in providing not only additional food choices, but increased food sales overall andwhere multiple gather, creating new points of interest. Amendments to the zoning ordinance

and the town code are proposed that would add food trucks as allowable uses in theCommercial and Public/Semi-Public districts, subject to a comprehensive Food Truck Policy.

The proposed policy would be administered by the Town Manager and delineate specific areas

food trucks may operate within Commercial and Public/Semi-Public zoning districts; as wellas hours, conditions, and fees for operation.

Incubator and “Maker Space” —Staff wishes to explore these uses and their potential placement with the Planning Commission in order to determine if amendments to the zoning

ordinance are necessary to allow for their creation. No amendments have been drafted for

consideration of the Planning Commission at this time.

Staff analysis, recommended text amendments and proposed policy documents referenced above are

attached separately.


99/111

Page 1 of 4

Hotels, Inns, Bed & Breakfasts, and Tourist Homes

Introduction

Old Town Warrenton has much to offer would-be visitors, including history, great shops, delectable dining,and easy access to the region’s many wineries. It does not, however, have overnight accommodations.While there are modern hotels (Hampton Inn and Holiday Inn Express) within town limits, there are notraditional Bed and Breakfasts nor Inns within the Central Business District (CBD). Currently, these and

similar uses are not allowable within the CBD, nor are they permissible with a special use permit. Staff believes these uses would be appropriate in the CBD and are a potential opportunity to increase tourismactivity in Old Town.

Staff recommends adding the following as permissible uses within the CBD: Hotels, Inns, Bed &

Breakfasts, and Tourist Homes. As permissible uses, interested proprietors would be required to obtain aspecial use permit. This process requires the applicant to provide a site sketch or plan, as well as describe

potential impacts, including noise and traffic. The process for consideration of this application provides the

opportunity for the Planning Commission and Town Council to assess the project in detail and, if found

necessary, apply conditions that can modify the project and/or make additional requirements above thoseset-out for by-right uses (e.g., applying conditions that limit the hours of events, number of participants andrequire some amount of on-site parking). This process also requires notification of immediate neighborsand provides the public and others affected the opportunity to express their concerns to both the Planning

Commission and Town Council.

Additionally, staff recommends amending the definition of Inn to provide for additional services, includingserving food and holding events. These services are customary for similar uses and would also be open to

review as part of the proprietor’s application for a special use permit.

Conversely, staff does not believe Motels to be an appropriate use in the CBD and recommends its removal

from the current list of permissible uses.

A list of definitions of lodging uses and comparison chart are included for reference.

Economic & Fiscal Impact

The addition of new accommodation options, particularly within Old Town, may help to attract visitorsfrom outside the immediate area. Additionally, desirable accommodations may encourage visitors to stayin Warrenton and the surrounding area longer, and thereby increase the potential amount spent on goodsand services, as well as increase the potential sales, meals and lodging tax revenues for the town.Specifically, the Town levies a 4% meals tax, 4% lodging tax and receives a portion of sales tax on

purchases within the town.

Furthermore, amending the definition of Inns to allow for events, meeting space and food service provides potential proprietors an important source of revenue. Additionally, drawing groups of people into Old Town

for private events may help to expose new groups of people to the charms of Warrenton, creating potentialfor their return as tourists, or extended stays.


100/111

Page 2 of 4

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Warrenton, VA:

1. Article 3-4.11.3 (Central Business District-Permissible Uses): Addition of, “ Hotels, Inns, Bed &

Breakfasts, and Tourist Homes”

2.

Article 12 (Definitions): Modification of the definition of ‘Inn’ as follows, “ A single-familydwelling, or portion thereof, or accessory building to , where short-term lodging is provided for

compensation to transient guests only. Additional services, such as restaurants, meeting and

event space, and recreational facilities may also be provided. The operator may or may not live

on the premises. Meals may be provided to guests only. Up to twelve (12) guest rooms may be

provided.”

3. Article 3-4.11.3 (Central Business District-Permissible Uses): Removal of, “ Motel”

Comparison Chart & Definitions

Comparison Chart: See Table 1 on the next page.


101/111

Page 3 of 4

Table 1. Comparison of Overnight Accommodation Uses

Use StructureRooms/Guests

Permitted

Additional Services

PermittedOther Zoning Districts

Tourist Homes Dwelling Up to 5

persons

None. Open to transients. Permitted (by-right): None

Permissible (SUP): R-15, R-

10

Bed &

BreakfastFacility

Private

Residence

Up to 4 rooms

(no cookingfacilities)

Meals for guests only. Maximum visit duration 14

days. Live-in operator on-site

required.

Permitted (by-right): None

Permissible (SUP): R-15, R-10, R-6, R-40, R-E

Inn Single-Family

Dwelling

Up to 12

rooms

(Proposed ) Additional

services, such as

restaurants, meeting and

event space, and

recreational facilities.

Transient guests only.

Operator may live on or off-

site.

Permitted (by-right): None

Permissible (SUP): R-15, R-

10

Hotel Facility 10 or more

individuals

Limited to 75

rooms in CBD

Additional services, such

as restaurants, meeting

rooms, and recreational

facilities.

Daily rate required. Permitted (by-right): C

Permissible (SUP): CBD

Motel Building/Group

of detached or

semi-detached

buildings

No limit

specified in

definition

Limited to 75

rooms in CBD

None. Separate room/apartment

entrances close to parking or

storage space.

Building principally forsleeping accommodations for

automobile travelers.

Building suitable for

occupancy in all seasons.

Permitted (by-right) : C

Permissible (SUP): CBD

Conference

Center

Facility

designed for

conducting

large or small

group meetings

No limit

specified in

definition

May include food

preparation and service,

entertainment, social or

charitable events, and

recreational facilities.

May include overnight

accommodations or short-

term lodging (not longer than

14 consecutive days)

Permitted (by-right) : I

Permissible (SUP): None


102/111

Page 4 of 4

Definitions

Tourist Home: A dwelling where only lodging is provided for compensation for up to five (5) persons (in

contradistinction to hotels and boardinghouses) and open to transients.

Bed & Breakfast Facility: A private residence, or portion thereof, where short-term lodging is provided for

compensation (no longer than 14 consecutive days) and meals may be provided, to guests only. The operator

of the facility shall live on the premises or in an adjacent premises on the same lot. Up to four (4) guestrooms without cooking facilities may be provided. [also see Tourist Home; also see Inn]

Inn: A single-family dwelling, or portion thereof, where short-term lodging is provided for compensationto transient guests only. The operator may or may not live on the premises. Meals may be provided to guestsonly. Up to twelve (12) guest rooms may be provided. (Also see Bed and Breakfast Facility).

Hotel: A facility offering transient lodging accommodations for ten or more individuals on a daily rate and

providing additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, and recreational facilities (See also,Motel).

Motel: A building or a group of two (2) or more detached or semi-detached buildings containing rooms or

apartments having separate entrances provided directly or closely in connection with automobile parking

or storage space serving such rooms or apartments, which building or group of buildings is designed,intended, or used principally for the providing of sleeping accommodations for automobile travelers and issuitable for occupancy at all seasons of the year.

Conference Center: A facility designed for conducting large or small group meetings. Such facilities may

include overnight accommodations or short term lodging (not longer than fourteen (14) consecutive days),food preparation and service, entertainment, social or charitable events, and recreational facilities.


103/111

Page 1 of 3

Food Trucks

Introduction

Mobile food vendors, or food trucks, continue to gain popularity and use across the country. Their mobilenature presents new intricacies and challenges for localities. Like many localities, Warrenton’s town codeand zoning ordinance do not envision this type of business.

Currently, mobile food vendors are able to operate on private property for a limited time period. However,

these businesses are not able to receive a business license or remit meals tax without a zoning permit.

Therefore, several amendments are necessary that will define what a mobile food vendor is and indicate

which zoning districts it can be an allowable use in. Additionally, rules and regulations on how food trucksmust operate, when, and other requirements are often desired.

Staff reviewed the programs for mobile food vendors in several localities (including City of Charlottesville,

Fairfax County, and the City of Norfolk), as well as best practice documents from the National Associationof Food Trucks and data on industry trends and impact.

Staff’s goals are to create a program that is uncomplicated, can be administered with minimal cost, and thatcan be adapted as Warrenton’s experience with food trucks grows. Staff found the model used by the Cityof Norfolk to be most suitable. To follow this model, the Town of Warrenton would need to do the

following:

Amend the Town Code to define Mobile Food Vendors;

Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow mobile food vendors as allowable uses in the commercialdistricts (Commercial, Industrial, and Central Business District), subject to the policy and

procedures of a Mobile Food Vendor Program; and

Create a Mobile Food Vendor Program, including Policy and Procedures document that isadministered and may be amended by the Town Manager.

Specifying the rules and regulations in a policy document administered by the Town Manager allows the program to operate more succinctly and evolve over time. This document (draft enclosed) would specify:

The specific areas where mobile food vendors can operate

Requirements and process for application into the Mobile Food Vendor Program

Fee schedule and meals bond requirement

Hours and specifics of operations

Circumstances for dismissal from the Mobile Food Vendor Program

At this time, it does not require the use of a decal system or specially marked areas.

Economic & Fiscal Impact

The long-term impact of allowing food trucks is reported by national research to be positive. Among the benefits are increased sales, customers, diversity, entrepreneurship opportunities, and tax revenue as well

as a positive reflection of community values. These can all benefit existing restaurants, as well as foodtrucks. Each listed benefit is described in further detail below and examples are included as often as

possible. A selection of reference materials follows, including case-studies, best practice information andlinks to programs in other localities.


104/111

Page 2 of 3

Increased sales to customers who may not otherwise purchase food, due to:

Location — For example, at the WARF parents may not be inclined to leave while their child

participates in sports and there are no food options available.

Cost —The low cost of some trucks attracts customers who wouldn’t normally go to a restaurant to

eat or wouldn’t go to a restaurant for a lunch or a snack.

Increased draw of new customers and new sales. Including customers that:

Follow a specific food truck — Some loyal foodies will drive upwards of 20 miles for their favorite

truck. This potentially draws new customers in from outside areas.

Are attracted by a specific food type or dish — For example, specialty offerings (like lobster rolls,fugu kimbap, or watermelon jalapeno lemonade) and international flavors not available in thecurrent market create interest and draw new customers to dine on a ‘must-have’.

Creates new business opportunities. The small size and mobile nature of food trucks allows food truckentrepreneurs to:

Try out new markets — Testing demand can be very helpful for would-be restaurant owners. For

example: Vietnamese and Korean food are very popular in northern Virginia, but are not offeredin the Warrenton area. Successful food truck sales of these cuisines would demonstrate demand to

the food truck operator and other potential restaurateurs that a potential market opportunity exists.

Sustain a business with smaller sales volumes — Food trucks are often what many would consider‘micro- businesses’, employing only one or two people. The smaller volume of sales required tokeep a food truck operation running allows entrepreneurs with limited cash-flow or time a newopportunity to start their own business. Additionally, smaller sales volumes allow owners to

prepare smaller amounts of food at a time, which can be an important cost savings for those usingorganic or other specialty products (such as, gluten-free dough, etc.).

Expand into mobile sales (in addition to a brick and motor location) — With the swell of

interest in food trucks, many traditional restaurateurs are capitalizing on the food truck scene bytaking their cuisine mobile as an additional revenue stream and a way to reach new customers.

Capture of tax revenue. Creating opportunities for food trucks to operate legally allows the town tocapture tax revenue from food truck vendors, including business license taxes and meals tax. The 4% mealstax applied by the town is one of the largest sources of revenue for the town. The food truck policy, as

proposed, would make applying to operate a food truck in town a simplified process and make timelysubmission of meals tax a requirement of continued operation.

Demonstrate the openness and diversity of a community. If you are what you eat, then ever expandingdiversity in food offerings reflects a community’s appreciation for o ther cultures and creativity. An activefood truck scene also demonstrates a community’s openness to entrepreneurship in general.

Reference Materials

“Case Study: On the Go - Insights into Food Truck Regulation in US Cities” Data-Smart City Solutions,Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Kennedy School, Harvard University (Mar

2015)

“Food trucks gaining momentum, new research finds” National Restaurant Association (Sept 2011)

“FOOD ON WHEELS: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream” National League of Cities (Sept 2013)

“Hampton Health Department Requirements for Mobile Food Units” Hampton Health Department,Virginia Department of Health

http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/case-study-food-trucks-585http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/case-study-food-trucks-585http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/case-study-food-trucks-585http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Food-trucks-gaining-momentum,-new-research-findshttp://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Food-trucks-gaining-momentum,-new-research-findshttp://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Food-trucks-gaining-momentum,-new-research-findshttp://www.nlc.org/Documents/Find%20City%20Solutions/Research%20Innovation/Economic%20Development/FoodTruckReport2013_Final_9-26.pdfhttp://www.nlc.org/Documents/Find%20City%20Solutions/Research%20Innovation/Economic%20Development/FoodTruckReport2013_Final_9-26.pdfhttp://www.nlc.org/Documents/Find%20City%20Solutions/Research%20Innovation/Economic%20Development/FoodTruckReport2013_Final_9-26.pdfhttp://www.vdh.virginia.gov/lhd/Hampton/documents/pdf/Mobile%20Unit%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.vdh.virginia.gov/lhd/Hampton/documents/pdf/Mobile%20Unit%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.vdh.virginia.gov/lhd/Hampton/documents/pdf/Mobile%20Unit%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.nlc.org/Documents/Find%20City%20Solutions/Research%20Innovation/Economic%20Development