Planning Commission backs rewrite of Planned Unit Development rules, lowers minimum PUD size to 20 acres

The Culpeper County Planning Commission voted to forward a proposed text amendment, ZTA 12‑24‑1, that would repeal and replace Article 8B of the county zoning ordinance and revise the rules governing Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). The commission made the recommendation after staff outlined changes intended to align the PUD standards with the 2023 comprehensive plan and to provide more flexible, master‑planned development options.

Staff member Sam told the commission the draft lowers the minimum PUD district size from the current 200 acres to 20 acres (an earlier draft proposed 10 acres) and sets a base density at 12 dwelling units per acre. "PUD is basically, typically, what you'll describe as a mixed use type development," Sam said, adding that incentives could increase density to 16 units per acre when a project meets conditions such as providing at least 25% mixed‑use dwelling types (for example, cottage courts, duplexes or multi‑family structures).

Why it matters: The change would make smaller, master‑planned mixed‑use projects possible outside very large developments and is intended to offer another tool for growth in areas the county’s comprehensive plan identifies for future development. Commissioners questioned whether the lower acreage threshold could encourage sprawl; staff said the rewrite ties PUDs to future growth areas and the urban services boundary, and that any rezoning into a PUD would still require a public hearing and proffers through the standard rezoning process.

The draft also clarifies development standards. Staff summarized a set of incentives that can reduce open‑space requirements (capped at a 25% reduction) in exchange for features such as intentionally planned vegetated riparian buffers and use of nutrient credits. Parking incentives for parking structures and solar canopies were described; those incentives were reduced to 15% in the current draft. The draft removes a total floor area maximum for residential uses in mixed‑use structures and adds language encouraging provision of public parking and attention to circulation and trails.

Commissioners pressed staff on specific code language and implementation details. One commissioner pushed to change a phrase requiring that PUDs "should" connect to nearby sidewalks and ultimate facilities, saying "a should means it doesn't do anything" and urging the language be tightened to require connections where appropriate; staff responded that the commission's recommendation to remove or strengthen subjective terms was appropriate and would be incorporated. Other discussion focused on how height limits, setbacks and parking would interact with the density standard and whether perimeter or bulk restriction lines should be added to protect adjacent properties.

The commission also reviewed the uses matrix in the draft ordinance, asking why manufactured‑home communities were listed as conditional rather than permitted and whether small retail (cleaners, laundromats) should be allowed in true mixed‑use buildings. Staff said some entries could be moved to permitted categories and that larger industrial uses are listed separately.

What the commission decided: After discussion and suggested edits (including clarifying the definition of agriculture in the ordinance and addressing matrix changes), a commissioner moved to forward ZTA 12‑24‑1 to the Board of Supervisors with the Planning Commission’s recommendation; the commission approved the motion by voice vote.

Next steps: The zoning amendment will be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration. Because the draft ties PUD allowances to the comprehensive plan and the urban services boundary, future rezoning applications proposing PUDs will still undergo public hearings and notification requirements under the county’s rezoning process.