December 20, 2016
7:00 PM

1. Call to order and establishment of a quorum.
2. Approval of Minutes – November 15, 2016 (Regular Meeting).
3. Regular Meeting
4. Work Session
a. Special Use Permit (SUP) 2016-05 – Saint James’ Episcopal Church, Central Business
District. The request, per Article 3-4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, is to expand the
existing school facility behind the Church located at 73 Culpeper Street. The plans
submitted show a new 10,000 square foot two-story building located adjacent to the rear
parking lot, to be accessed from South Third Street. The parcel is zoned Central Business
District and the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as Central Business District on
the future land use plan. GPIN: 6984-33-7061-000; 6984-32-8993-000; and 6984-32-7819000.

1. Comments from the Commission
a. Acknowledgement of Planning Commissioners whose terms are ending.
2. Comments from the Staff
a. Update on planning related project meetings.
3. Adjourn

November 15, 2016
7:00 PM
The Town of Warrenton Planning Commission (PC) convened a work session on Tuesday, November 15,
2016 at 7:00 PM in the Municipal Building.
The following members were present: Dr. John Harre, Chair; Ms. Susan Helander, Vice-Chair; Mr. Ali
Zarabi; Mr. John Kip; Ms. Christine Dingus; Mr. Jeremy Downs; Mr. Brett Hamby, Town Council Liaison;
and Mr. Whitson Robinson, Town Attorney. Ms. Brandie Schaeffer, Director of Planning and Community
Development represented staff. Ms. Anna Maas and Mr. Lowell Nevill were absent.
Dr. Harre called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and a quorum was determined. Dr. Harre welcomed Mr.
Jeremy Downs as the newest Planning Commission member and Ms. Schaeffer in her first meeting as the
new Planning and Community Development Director for the Town of Warrenton.
Approval of Minutes
Dr. Harre asked if anyone had changes for the October 18, 2016 Meeting minutes. Mr. Kip made motion to
approve October 18, 2016 minutes as submitted. Ms. Dingus seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion passed unanimously (6-0-2 Maas and Nevill absent).
Regular Meeting
a. Special Use Permit 2016-04 – Walker Drive Cross Parking Agreement. The request, per Article
7-12 Cooperative Parking of the Zoning Ordinance, is to establish a cross parking agreement
between a new building located at 321 Walker Drive with existing buildings located at 331 and 361
Walker Drive. The parcel is zoned Industrial and the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as
Light Industrial on the Future Land Use Plan. The owners are Walker Investment Group, LLC, F &
R Development, LLC, JL Woodside Properties, LLC, CCMK, LLC, Hirshman Hoover, LLC, RAM
Holdings, LLC, and JS Woodside Properties, LLC. GPINs 6984-74-5565-000, 6984-74-8242-001,
6984-74-8242-002, 6984-74-8242-003, 6984-74-8242-004, 6984-74-8242-005, 6984-74-8242-006,
6984-74-8242-007, 6984-73-6957-101, 6984-73-6957-201, 6984-73-6957-202, 6984-73-6957-203,
and 6984-73-6957-204.
Ms. Schaeffer presented Special Use Permit (SUP) 2016-04, which included a detailed analysis of parking
spaces at OTAC I and OTAC II, showing the buildings currently have 37 spaces over the amount required.
OTAC III (SDP 2015-02) is a new building under construction to the north and west of OTAC I and II.
This request is to create a cooperative parking agreement to allow existing additional parking on OTAC I
and II to be used as part of the required parking calculations for OTAC III.

Mr. Zarabi inquired about the timing of the SUP, with Ms. Schaeffer responding that this was the
appropriate time for SUP submission. Mr. Kip asked about connections between the parking lots. Ms.
Schaeffer detailed the existing and proposed connections between the three buildings. Mr. Downs inquired
if the SUP was equivalent to an easement between neighboring owners. Ms. Schaeffer confirmed the SUP
would function like a secured easement, protecting the use over time if ownership changes.
Dr. Harre opened the floor to comments at 7:08 PM and invited Mr. Mike Forsten, applicant, to the
podium. Mr. Forsten commented on how Ms. Schaeffer did a wonderful job summarizes the application
and he had nothing to add. There were no other comments so Dr. Harre closed the public hearing at 7:08
Ms. Schaeffer explained that the zoning requirement to track uses and square footage for buildings is near
impossible without input from the owner. She requested the Planning Commission agree to a condition that
the applicant be responsible for submitting proof of compliance with the parking agreement, by providing
occupancy and parking tabulations data, with each plan submission and/or business license request.
Dr. Harre asked what would happen if use change was requested that resulted in a shortage of parking. Ms.
Schaeffer responded the permit would be denied based on non-compliance with the SUP and Zoning
Ordinance. Ms. Schaeffer noted there is the possibility of adding additional parking on site if the applicant
so chooses, but he prefers not to build the additional parking at this time.
Mr. Kip made motion to approve SUP 2016-04 with the following conditions:
1. The property shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Site Development Plan dated
June 13, 2016, allowing sheets 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. Subject to review and approval of applicable
Federal, state, and local regulations.
2. The property owner shall provide the Town with documentation of Use, Area (sq ft) and Required
Parking to aid in the tracking of parking for changes in tenant/use.
Ms. Helander seconded the motion. Dr. Harre asked if there was any discussion on the motion presented.
Mr. Zarabi approved the buffering of existing trees to reduce the environmental impact. All were in favor
and the motion passed unanimously (6-0-2, Maas and Nevill absent).
b. Walkability Audits – Town of Warrenton/PATH Foundation “Healthy Lifestyles – Complete
Streets and Active Transportation” Memorandum of Understanding scope of work calls for five (5)
walkability audits to be conducted. Review of purpose, routes, and next steps will be discussed with
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Harris provided background on the Walkability Audits. On December 8, 2015 the Town Council
passed the Healthy Eating Active Lifestyle (HEAL) Initiative that recognizes the impact policies and
practices of the Town have on the health of its residents. The combination of the adoption of the HEAL
Initiative with the need to update the Comprehensive Plan led to the Town collaborating with the PATH
Foundation, who approved a grant on June 17, 2016. On July 12, 2016, Town Council authorized the Town
Manager to enter into an agreement with the PATH Foundation for $100,000 in consulting services
provided by the PATH Foundation, resulting in a contract with Toole Design Group on September 23,
2016 for the following:

Complete Street Assessment and Recommended Policy Approach
Five (5) Walkability Audits
Trails Plan Update
Community Engagement and Stakeholder Education Events
Page 2

The first component is the Walkability Audits, a technique used for the last 30 years in the United States as
an unbiased, on the ground, audit to identify what is working, while also identifying pedestrian concerns
related to safety, access, comfort, and convenience of the walking environment of a community. These
audits provide implementable design treatments the Town may be able to use going forward. A Walkability
Audit consists of a one-day gathering of stakeholders, with a technical presentation in the morning before
going out into the environment, walk it, assess it, and have almost a visioning process before coming back
together as a group to discuss lessons learned. Ms. Harris explained the focus is not about sidewalks, but
instead about our land, land use, and how we design our communities to travel between activity centers.
The Warrenton Health, Parks & Recreation Committee; Public Safety and Transportation Committee; and
Town Council identified the following five (5) proposed routes:

Old Town
Shirley Avenue from Culpeper Street down to Falmouth Street
Waterloo Road
Alexandria Pike/Blackwell Road Oak Springs Shopping Center towards Old Town
Walker Drive

The next step is to identify one or two Planning Commissioners who would be interested in being the
point-of-contact who could go on one or more of these routes. The second step is to request help with
identifying which key stakeholders should at these locations. Dates will then be set and invitations will be
sent out to participate. Ms. Harris then answered various questions.
Ms. Helander requested examples of stakeholders. Ms. Harris provided examples and mentioned wanting
to include Town staff representatives and Town Council. Dr. Harre asked for Planning Commission
volunteers. Ms. Helander and Mr. Kip volunteered while others were interested if held on the weekend.
Comments from the Staff
Ms. Schaeffer told the Planning Commission about the Virginia Tech Extension Program offering 89th
Annual Certified Planning Commissioner Program, beginning March 3, 2017 in Purcellville, VA. She
encourages commissioners and Town Council members to attend. Ms. Schaeffer will send details in an
email. The Fauquier County Planning Commission had been working on a joint work session with
Culpeper County Planning Commission and extended an invitation for the Warrenton Planning
Commission. Originally scheduled for September, the joint work session will be held Thursday, November
17, 2016.
Ms. Schaeffer confirmed with Dr. Harre there is nothing for the November 22, 2016 Work Session. Dr.
Harre made decision to cancel.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.
Minutes submitted by Karen Kowalski.
Minutes were approved on ____________________.

Page 3


Planning Commission


Brandie M. Schaeffer, Director Planning and Community Development


December 20, 2016


Planning Commission Regular Meeting -Work Sessions

During the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on December 20th, there
will be a work session on the Saint James’ Episcopal Church Special Use Permit (SUP)
application to expand the existing school building and continued use of the school. The Town
has begun to receive a number of requests to hold work sessions before various boards and
commissions. With the Chair’s permission, staff will bring the applications forward to the
Planning Commission for a work session. However, staff will not be providing a staff report until
such time as the application comes forward for a public hearing. Staff will provide basic
background on the intent of the applications. For example, for this work session, staff has
attached the Saint James’ Episcopal Church SUP application, Statement of Justification, and
submitted plans.
The work session request is for a pending SUP application on the Saint James’ Episcopal
Church school proposal under Article 3-4.11.3. of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the existing
school facility behind the Church located at 73 Culpeper Street. The plans submitted show a new
10,000 square foot two-story building located adjacent to the rear parking lot and to be accessed
from South Third Street. The parcel is zoned Central Business District and the Comprehensive
Plan identifies the property as Central Business District on the future land use plan.
Since the properties fall within the Historic District, the applicant and their architect requested,
and were granted, work sessions before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on September

22, 2016 and November 17, 2016 to receive input prior to applying for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (ARB Meeting Minutes and Staff Reports Attached). The ARB has offered
multiple comments related to design and materials.

Saint James is scheduled to hold a third work session with the Architectural Review Board on
December 22, 2017. The Special Use Permit will be coming forth before the Planning
Commission for a public hearing in the New Year and the applicant will be pursuing a Certificate
of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board as well.
There is no Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 27th.

Saint James’ Episcopal Church SUP Application
Statement of Justification
SUP Expansion Plans
November 17, 2016 ARB Minutes
November 17, 2016 ARB Staff Report

November 17, 2016
7:00 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Town of Warrenton Architectural Review Board (ARB) convened on
November 17, 2016 at 7:00 PM in the Municipal Building.
Dr. Melissa Wiedenfeld, Chair, called the meeting to order and a quorum was determined. The
following were present: Mr. James Tucker, Vice-Chair, Dr. Carole Hertz, Mr. Carter Nevill, Town
Council member Mr. Alec Burnett, Ms. Kelly Machen, Community Development Planner and Ms.
Brandie Schaeffer, Director of Planning and Community Development were present and represented
staff. Mr. Steve Wojcik was absent.
Purpose Statement
The Purpose of the Architectural Review Board is to make a decision on applications in order to
preserve the character of the Historic District of the Town of Warrenton on behalf of the Town of
Warrenton. Decisions of the Board are based upon the Historic Guidelines and a decision for each
application is made based upon its own merits. Those decisions do not constitute precedence for any
future decisions. The Historic Guidelines provide the framework for consistent decision making by
elaborating upon the Zoning Ordinance’s goal to identify, protect and preserve the buildings within
the Historic District boundaries.
Approval of Minutes
Dr. Wiedenfeld presented the minutes from the meeting of October 27, 2016 for approval.
Dr. Hertz made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously, (4-0-1).
New Business

Certificate of Appropriateness 2016-50. Proposed deck extension 32 Main Street; Mr.
Walter Story, Owner.

Mr. Story approached the podium and addressed the Board regarding the deck extension at 32 Main
Street. He said the deck will look like the one that is currently there. The proposal is to extend the


deck 6 feet wide by 12 feet out from the building. The iron posts will be painted black and the deck
will be treated wood.
Board members made comments and queried Mr. Story regarding the deck extension, with Mr. Story
providing responses. A highlight of the discussion included a debate on the structure colors (cooler
and supports), and which color would best blend in with the building.
Mr. Nevill made a motion to approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness 2016-50
for proposed deck extension at 32 Main Street with the following conditions:
1. A building permit is acquired.
Dr. Hertz seconded the motion. The motion passed with all members voting in favor (4-0-1).
Work Session
Dr. Wiedenfeld introduced Brandie Schaeffer, the new Director of Planning and Community
Development. The first item for the work session was a proposed addition and renovations at Saint
James Episcopal Church, previously discussed at a work session on September 22, 2016.
Ms. Schaeffer said that work sessions are very beneficial for a project concerning a historical
building in order to get input from the Architectural Review Board. It gives the Planning
Commission a better idea of the direction of the project from the Architectural Review Board for the
Special Use Permit (SUP). The Certificate of Appropriateness will be paused in processing, while
the applicant moves forward with the SUP. This allows the SUP to move forward through the
Planning Commission and Town Council, before coming back for the final COA, as staff cannot
anticipate any changes that may come out of the Special Use Permit. Ms. Schaeffer said it is
beneficial for an architect to get guidance from the Architectural Review Board.

Work Session Submission: Saint James Episcopal Church proposed renovations and
addition at 73 Culpeper Street; Sean Reilly, Architect

Sean Reilly approached the podium to address the Board. Utilizing the overhead screens, he
presented historical photographs of the church and computer-generated models of the proposed
addition. He presented the Board with a proposal for the addition based on the feedback from a work
session held on September 22, 2016 and asked Architectural Review Board for additional guidance.
The architects sought to respond to issues the Architectural Review Board had brought forth at the
previous work session. Board brought up the following issues at the previous work session:

Maintain existing rectory garage.
Site layout and landscaping.
Visibility of the addition from Culpeper Street between the rectory and the church.
The roof of the addition, including how it transitions from the 60’s addition to the low
parapet flat roof design of the addition, and the location of the AC units/screening.
5. The east elevation facing Third Street, suggestions to look at further details to break up
the length of the façade.
6. How the addition ends, and how it could be more designated.

7. The materials and details of the addition, including the stucco skin and stone veneer,
heavy timber columns at the entry portal and porches, slate shingles, detailing of the
parapet, and the type of windows.
Mr. Reilly said they shifted the addition eight feet south toward Third Street in order to maintain the
existing garage and to provide room between the addition and the rectory. He explained that keeping
the garage is feasible, but more costly and difficult, and asked the Board’s guidance on whether they
would consider removing the garage and rebuilding it with the details as is, or remove it and
replicate it further from the addition.
Dr. Wiedenfeld asked if moving the garage meant reusing the materials from the existing garage.
Mr. Reilly said most materials would have to be new to replicate the existing structure.
Board members queried Mr. Reilly on structural elements of the garage and he provided answers.
Ms. Schaeffer asked if the garage was a contributing structure, and if so, by what standards.
Dr. Wiedenfeld stated it was a contributing structure, explaining that when they drew up the historic
district, some of the ancillary buildings at the rear of properties were not included. The structure was
built of historic materials between 1924 and 1931.
Ms. Schaeffer said the Historic Guidelines determine contribution based designation on the national
register. The garage is not included on the historic resource survey and is not listed under
contributing structures.
Dr. Wiedenfeld said it would be considered contributing and would be eligible.
Ms. Schaeffer said from a legal standpoint, staff could not find evidence on the national register of
the garage being a contributing structure.
Dr. Wiedenfeld said it is part of the rectory property, which is on the historic registry, and that it
does not have to be designated as contributing because it is part of the property.
Ms. Schaeffer suggested a determination from Whit Robinson, was needed.
Dr. Wiedenfeld said that would be fine and that Mr. Robinson should consult with the Board.
Mr. Reilly went on to talk about the site lighting and landscaping for the project. Board members
queried Mr. Reilly on the views of the addition and Mr. Reilly provided answers.
Mr. Reilly talked about the air conditioning units. The HVAC system has been changed to a system
that requires much smaller rooftop equipment and it will make the roof much cleaner visually.
Mr. Reilly spoke about the various architectural designs for the addition including the roof structures
and the parapet. Board members queried Mr. Reilly on the designs and Mr. Reilly provided answers.
He presented the Board with samples of synthetic slate shingles for the roofs and explained that the
synthetic slate is a third of the weight of real slate and is made of recycled material.
Mr. Tucker stated the existing buildings currently have Buckingham slate. Slate looks the same after
one hundred years. Roofs are very important in maintaining the character of buildings in historic

districts and noted Historic Guidelines discuss slate roofs. Mr. Tucker strongly recommended using
Dr. Wiedenfeld said the Historic Guidelines do state that natural materials are required.
Mr. Reilly spoke about elevations, including the south elevation. He talked about various design
elements for the addition and renovation including the stucco and stone veneer, the heavy timber
columns and detailing of the parapet. Board members made comments and asked questions on the
elements and Mr. Reilly provided answers.
Mr. Reilly presented the Board with a sample of the windows to be used for the addition. The
windows on the existing 1960’s addition are rectangular. The proposed windows for the addition
have a similar proportion. The windows have operable casements with a center fixed light in the
middle and will provide good ventilation and natural light for the classrooms. Board members
queried Mr. Reilly on features of the windows.
Additional comments from the Board were provided. Dr. Wiedenfeld said there were many changes
that were positive. Mr. Tucker said he was not enamored with the flat, 1950 schoolhouse looking
roof, adding it does not follow the spirit of the Historic Guidelines. Dr. Hertz commented that the
addition looked too institutional, it was not graceful, and detracted from the aesthetics of the church.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Reilly to provide alternatives to present to the Board and made suggestions as
to possible changes, such as terminating the building with a slope roof and breaking up the parapet
with rain leaders or some other feature.
Mr. Nevill noted the structure is an institution and provided design suggestions, stating that he was
fine with the flat roof, supporting the Board’s preference of using real slate versus simulated slate,
and differing to the legal definition of a contributing structure for the garage.
Dr. Wiedenfeld noted the next Architectural Review Board meeting is on December 22, 2016.
Brandie Schaeffer, Director of Planning and Community Development said the planning department
has executed a contract for the revisions to the sign ordinance and including the Historic Guidelines.
A steering committee is under development and staff requests one Architectural Review Board
member on the committee.
Dr. Hertz recommended Carter Nevill for the committee, adding that he has done substantial
research on signage.
Mr. Nevill said he would serve as representative if it pleased the Board.
Mr. Tucker made a motion to appoint Carter Nevill to the steering committee for the sign ordinance.
Dr. Hertz seconded the motion. The motion passed with the majority voting in favor (3-0-1, Mr.
Nevill abstained).
Mr. Nevill made a motion to adjourn. Dr. Hertz seconded the motion. The motion passed with all
voting in favor (4-0-1). The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.


Work Session
November 17, 2016

Sean E. Reilly, Kerns Group Architects, P.C.


Saint James Episcopal Church


73 Culpeper Street




Central Business District - CBD



Conduct a second work session to discuss a proposed addition at Saint James’ Episcopal Church
and School. On the south side of the lot, the Saint James’ Episcopal Church and School are
looking to build an education wing addition. The proposed addition “extends the geometry of the
existing eastern wing of the building.” The design includes a gabled porch. Stucco skin with
stone at the base, punched windows, and slate shingles at the sloping porch roofs.
The first work session introduced the project to the Board, with Mr. Reilly providing a power
point presentation. Board members gave comments and queried Mr. Reilly on issues related to
the addition and Mr. Reilly provided answers. Highlights of the discussion included proposed
materials for windows and roofing, the architecture of the roof line, the treatment of entrances,
and the future of the existing garage. There was a lengthy conversation over whether the exiting
garage is a contributing structure, demolition procedures, and whether it can or should be moved.
The applicant was encouraged to bring samples of proposed building materials when the formal
application comes forward for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Historic and Architectural Significance:
Saint James’ Episcopal Church is a stuccoed Gothic Revival church with a crenellated corner
tower. Originally built in 1850-1853, the church was rebuilt in 1912 by the Architect Irwin
Fleming after being destroyed in 1910 fire. The circa 1928 Tudor Revival Style Parish Hall and
school are attached to the rear of the church and were built by W.J. Hanback. The church is an
important example of 20th-century Gothic Revival in Warrenton and located on Culpeper Street.

Zoning Ordinance Considerations:
The subject property is zoned Central Business District. A full building, zoning, and public
works and utilities review has not been completed at this time, but will be included as more
information is available. Per Article 3-, the proposed addition is considered a substantial
alterations requiring Architectural Review Board approval.
2. Any addition to or alteration of a structure which increases the square footage of the
structure or otherwise alters substantially its size, height, contour, or outline.
Historic District Guidelines Considerations:
Guidelines for Addition(s) to Existing Buildings
The following guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the previous guidelines for
building elements.
1. The existing building will be recognized as a product of its period of construction, design,
materials and craftsmanship.
2. Additions will cause the least possible diminution or loss of the historic character of the
existing building including its materials, craftsmanship, design, location and setting.
footprint as inconspicuously as possible by setting them back from the front and side of
the building
3. Locate additions that increase the interior footprint as inconspicuously as possible by
setting them back from the front and side of the building
4. Additions should be clearly subordinate to the existing building in overall size including
height, width, depth and scale.
5. When increased height of a side or rear addition is desired, consider excavating deeper
to lower it or dropping it into the terrain.
6. Avoid raising the height of contributing buildings with additional floors.
7. When an additional story is the only means of achieving necessary increased space, it
should be stepped back from the lower wall plane and comply with the predominant
height of existing neighboring buildings.
8. Design and construct additions in such a manner that if removed in the future, the
essential form, character and integrity of the historic property remains intact. For
example, a small connector passage or hyphen to join a side or rear addition to the
original building is less invasive and destroys less fabric than a full elevation connection.
9. Recognize all buildings as products of their own time; design the new addition so that it
can be distinguished from the original, yet be compatible with the massing, size, scale
and architectural features. This can be subtly accomplished on a brick building by using
a more modern stretcher course bond or varying the original pattern. A true masonry
stuccoed frame or weatherboard frame addition would also differentiate compatibly.
10. The style of the addition should not replicate the original but might respectfully, modestly
reflect design elements.
11. Unpainted, pressure-treated wood or vinyl decks are inappropriate porch additions.
Traditional historic style painted wood porches are preferred. Expanded porches shall

73 Culpeper St | Page 2




continue the original design and treatment. Should the addition be a chimney, its
material should conform to the building’s foundation or wall surface.
ROOF form of an addition should be consistent with the contributing building and
streetscape. The roof covering should be similar to the building in texture and material.
DOORS & WINDOWS - Respect the size, proportion, spacing and rhythm of existing
door and window openings on the existing building. For example, most of the existing
windows are vertical in proportion and are regularly spaced across the facade of
residential buildings and the upper story of store/houses. In such cases, new construction
should not depart substantially from these characteristics for the general pattern of
window openings, avoiding for example, horizontal strip windows, wide horizontal,
single-pane openings or square openings.
a. Respect the spatial relationship between the wall surface and window opening of
the existing building.
b. Double-hung sash and casement windows on additions should have true-divided
lights and be composed of wood.
MATERIALS - Refer to No. 9 and choose natural traditional building materials that are
compatible with the contributing building primarily. Depending on the building and
addition type and design, brick, stone, concrete block, cinder block, true masonry stucco,
frame weatherboard, board and batten and vertical plank wall surfaces are acceptable
materials. Additions to historic buildings require a higher standard than modern
buildings outside the district or a new building construction. Never use simulated wall
surfacing products such as EIFS, Dryvit, synthetic stone or synthetic brick, synthetic
masonry, fiber-cement, synthetic wood, vinyl, aluminum, wood-based, composite plywood
sidings, fiber wood or fiberglass on additions to contributing buildings. Such products
should not be used on other architectural details on additions.
Use half round metal gutters and round down spouts.
Additions to historic buildings should recognize the craftsmanship, design, style, texture,
materials, historic character and period of construction of the original building.

Next Steps:
The applicant will submit for zoning approval before submitting for a Certificate of

73 Culpeper St | Page 3

L a n d P l a n n in g , S u r v e y in g & S it e D e s ig n



Project Name:

St. James Episcopal Church

Property Owner: St. James Episcopal Church, Tees

St. James Episcopal Church, Tees


73 Culpeper Street, Warrenton, VA 20186




6984-32-8993-000 & 6984-32-7819-000


0.6556 acres


Central Business District (CBD)


Special Use Permit for continue use of School operations with future expansion.

The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Use Permits for the continuing use of their school
within a future expansion located at 73 Culpeper Street in The Town of Warrenton, Virginia.
The St James Episcopal Church wishes to construct a new school building to update and improve their
existing school. This expansion will be located along the south wall of the existing school and is planned
to be a two-story building addition with mechanical mezzanine on a footprint of 5,000 square feet. The
exterior of the expansion will be similar in style, finish and height as the adjacent church structures. The
expansion will be served by existing water, sanitary, electrical and storm located in the rights-of-way
abutting the property. The hours of operations for the school will remain the same with most public
activity occurring at 8:00am, 2:00pm and 3:00pm when children are dropped off and picked up. The
existing entrance from Beckham Street would remain the main entrance to the school but the existing
exit onto South 3rd Street is proposed to be relocated to align with East Franklin Street. Both the dropoff location for the new building and the improved egress will improve the flow of vehicles and improve
the stacking conditions on the adjacent streets. It will also simplify emergency access to the property.
The current open space that is located to the south of the existing school, which is used for outdoor
school activities will remain and continue to be use as such. The property currently has mature trees
located along the north of the parking lot that are also planned to remain.
The level of noise, light and odors generated by the use of the property will be no greater than current

45 Main Street, 1st Floor  Warrenton VA 20186
Phone: (540) 347-9191  Fax: (540) 349-1905

The proposed uses is a permissible use in the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district subject to
the general standards for Special Use Permits set forth in §3-4.11 of the Town of Warrenton Zoning
The siting of proposed addition will not adversely affect properties which are all commercial uses or
desire to be so. Further, as this project primarily consists primarily modernizing of an already
established school, there will be no real negative change in the existing conditions with regard to the
adjacent properties and, with regard to street congestion, should actually improve with circulation
changes that are proposed. As such, it will not inhibit the appropriate development of adjoining
As noted, the proposed addition is primarily to modernize the school facility and return much of the
existing school to traditional church function. As such, there will not be a noticeable increase in school
traffic as a result of this addition.
This application is consistent with its Central Business District (CBD) zoning designation and the
character & complexion of the existing commercial uses that are adjacent to the proposed addition.
Additionally, we believe the continued prosperity of this long-standing Warrenton institution is good
for the Warrenton and this school improvement is an important part of St. James’ continuing
contribution to the community. We appreciate your consideration of this application and respectfully
request your approval of the Special use Permit request.
For the St. James Episcopal Church
By Carson Land Consultants, LLC

By: James A Carson, Jr., P.E.

45 Main Street, 1st Floor  Warrenton VA 20186
Phone: (540) 347-9191  Fax: (540) 349-1905