Planning Commission - Work Session

Planning Commission - Work Session Agenda Thursday, January 29, 2026 at 9:00 AM Economic Development Center, Council Meeting Room 803 South Main Street, Culpeper Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CALL OF ROLL 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.1 Minutes from December 4, 2025 3-4 12-4-2025 PC WS minutes.pdf 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 6.1 Case CUP-6187-2025 5 - 15 Staff will introduce an application for a conditional use permit made by Caitlin Altizer, on behalf of the property owner, Parbatee, LLC, to establish a Family Day Care Home for up to 12 children as an accessory use to the single-family dwelling at 1660 Knicely Court. The property is identified as Tax Map 41G-3-71 in the East Fairfax Magisterial District. Staff_Report_CUP-6187-2025_Intro.pdf Attachment 1_1660 Knicely CUP Application.pdf Attachment 2_1660 Knicely CUP Cover Letter.pdf Attachment 3_1660 Knicely CUP Site Sketch.pdf Attachment 4_1660 Knicely CUP Email Correspondence_12-23-25.pdf Page 1 of 21  6.2 Case REZ-6265-2026 16 - 21 Staff will introduce an application to rezone a property from Residential Rural (RR) to Commercial (C) on Tax Map 50-1D in the West Fairfax Magisterial District. Clerk's note: The below attachments were added on 1/28/2026 at 3:53pm 1. 9-22-2025 letter to Planning Commission about UDO.pdf 2. 50-1D Maps.pdf 3. 9-25-2025 PC WS MINUTES.pdf 6.3 Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS 9. PLANNING DIRECTOR DISCUSSION 9.1 Ongoing Land Development and Transportation Projects 10. PLANNING COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION 11. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 21  Minutes Town of Culpeper Planning Commission Work Session December 4, 2025 803 S. Main St., Economic Development Center, Culpeper, VA 22701 Call to Order Mr. Clements called the meeting to order at 9:01 am Call of Roll Members Present: John Cerio James Clements John Flanagan Janie Schmidt Members Absent: Ian Fitzsimmons Staff Present: Andrew Hopewell, Director of Planning and Community Development Connie Dalton, Town Planner Kelli Carmichael, Planning and Zoning Assistant Approval of Agenda Motion: By Mr. Cerio, to approve the agenda as presented Seconded: By Ms. Schmidt Vote: Approved 4-0, 1 Absent Approval of Minutes Motion: By Mr. Cerio, to approve the minutes as presented Seconded: By Mr. Flanagan Vote: Approved 4-0, 1 Absent Comments and Correspondence from Citizens, Visitors and Delegations in the Audience on Items Not Scheduled for Public Hearing. None. Unfinished Business None. Discussion Items Comprehensive Plan Update: Mr. Hopewell opened discussion regarding the draft vision statements that were presented to the Commission at the previous meeting. Discussion ensued regarding their preferred style and length for the vision statement. The Commissioners reviewed the questions below that Ms. Dalton provided at the previous meeting for today’s discussion; • What do you value most about living in Culpeper? • What are the strengths of Culpeper? How do these strengths translate to Planning Commission Work Session 1 Minutes – December 4, 2025 Page 3 of 21  opportunities? • What are the obstacles that you see to reaching aspirational goals for Culpeper? • What are the weaknesses of Culpeper? How might the strengths compensate for these weaknesses? Staff will present an updated draft vision statement at the next regular meeting. Mr. Hopewell confirmed that at this time it is scheduled to be the only item on the agenda for that meeting. Other Business None. Follow Up Items None. Planning Director Discussion Mr. Clements noted that the agenda for the December 16th regular meeting will only have the draft vision statement and no other items. Motion: By Mr. Clements, to cancel the December regular meeting Seconded: By Mr. Flanagan Ms. Schmidt inquired about an update of the current projects within the Town. Mr. Hopewell confirmed that the quarterly update to the Commission of the land use and transportation projects is scheduled for the January work session. Vote: Approved 4-0, 1 Absent Mr. Clements opened discussion regarding budgeting for Commissioners to attend the State Planning Conference in 2026. Motion: By Mr. Clements, for Staff to request in the departmental budgeting, conference funding for all Commissioners to attend the State Planning Conference in 2026. Seconded: By Mr. Flanagan Vote: Approved 4-0, 1 Absent Planning Commissioner Discussion None. Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 10:54 am _______________________ ______________________________ Date Chairman Planning Commission Work Session 2 Minutes – December 4, 2025 Page 4 of 21  Planning Commission Work Session: CUP-6187-2025 January 29, 2026 TOWN OF CULPEPER CASE CUP-6187-2025: 1660 KNICELY COURT. 1660 KNICELY COURT - CONDITIONAL USE FAMILY DAY HOME PERMIT INTRODUCTION PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CUP-6187-2025 involves a request by Caitlin Altizer, on behalf of the property owner, Parbatee, LLC, to establish a Family Day Care Home for up to 12 children as an accessory use to the single-family dwelling on property located at 1660 Knicely Court. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required because the lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirement for administrative approval. The applicant is also requesting more than 2 employees. The property, identified as Tax Map Parcel 41G-3-71 in the East Fairfax Magisterial District, is zoned Residential Traditional (RT) and is 8,534 square-feet in size. 1 Page 5 of 21 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: 1. December 9, 2025 – An application for a Conditional Use Permit was submitted. BACKGROUND: Family Day Care Homes are permitted as accessory uses to a residential dwelling. Family Day Care Homes that provide care for between 5-12 children are regulated by section 27-7.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As required by Code of Virginia, § 15.2-2292, there is an administrative process for approval for such facilities provided certain requirements, found in UDO Section 27-7.60.3, are met. The regulations are as follows: A. Other Regulations and Licenses. The family day care home application must comply with all applicable town, county and state requirements, including obtaining a zoning permit, business license, building permit, and state family day care home license. B. Lot Area. The family day care home lot must be at least 10,000 square feet in area. C. Employees. No more than 2 employees are allowed in conjunction with a family day care home. The applicant must demonstrate availability of employee parking on-site in excess of the required dwelling unit parking. D. Drop-off and Pick-up 1) Child drop-off and pick-up locations must be designated to ensure the safety of children as they arrive and depart. A designated arrival and departure zone must be located adjacent to the family day care home center in such a manner that children do not have to cross a street to enter or exit the home. 2) Family day care homes must stagger pick-up and drop-off times so that there are never more than 2 vehicles picking up or dropping off at any one time. 3) There must be a continuous hard-surface pathway or sidewalk connecting the drop-off and pick-up location to the entrance to the family day care home. The pathway must be kept free of any snow or ice. E. Exterior Appearance. There may be no change in the outside appearance of the family day care home or lot nor other visible evidence of the conduct of a family day care home other than what may be required by the state family day care home license or provisions elsewhere in this UDO. F. Business Vehicles. Only one vehicle used in connection with a family day care home is permitted. G. Outdoor Play Area. 1) At least 75 square feet of outdoor play area must be provided on-site per child except as follows: No outdoor play area is required on-site when the applicant can demonstrate the family day care home is located within 1,000 feet of an existing park or play lot that is at least twice the area otherwise required for the family day care home. The park or play lot must be public or owned by the homeowners association to which the residence belongs and must be accessed without crossing an arterial or collector road. The outdoor play area must be shown on a plat to scale submitted at the time of application for the zoning permit. 2) Outdoor play areas must be enclosed by a fence with a minimum height of 4 feet. 3) No play equipment may be located within required building setbacks. UDO Section 27-7.60.3 states that “if the Zoning Administrator determines that an application does not comply with one or more of these regulations, the applicant may request that their application be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditional use permit procedures of 27-12.50.” The application could not be processed under the administrative process as two requirements were not met: the minimum lot area and the maximum number of employees. 2 Page 6 of 21 According to the plat of the property and County Assessor data, the parcel is 8,534 square-feet, or approximately .19 acres. This would make the parcel 1,466 square-feet less than the minimum 10,000 square-feet required for a Family Day Care Home. The parcel will still meet the required 900 square-feet of outdoor play area (75 square-feet per child multiplied by 12 children) in the backyard. As for employees, the applicant writes that her daughter will help full time along with a neighbor that will help when needed. This would bring the total possible workers of the Family Day Care Home to three. An application for a CUP was submitted on December 9, 2025. The application materials include a cover letter and sketch of the property. The back and side yards are enclosed with a six foot high wood fence. The applicant states that the driveway can accommodate 4 cars and that the pick up and drop off of children will not be of issue due to parents being able to pull in [the] driveway or at the edge of [the] driveway and easily be able to pull away without causing a traffic jam.” The applicant also notes that due to the operation being 24 hours, the pick-up and drop-off times would always be staggered. A schedule would be made that provides different pick-up and drop-off times. 3 Page 7 of 21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT According to UDO Section 27-12.50.8, in reviewing and acting on conditional use permit applications, the planning commission and town council must consider the following criteria: A. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed conditional use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Compliance with Applicable Regulations. Whether the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations of this UDO. C. Adverse Impacts. Whether the proposed conditional use will adversely affect nearby properties or the public health, safety, and general welfare. D. Compatibility. Whether the proposed conditional use will be compatible with the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and the types, scale, and intensity of uses allowed in the subject zone. E. Water Quality. If the proposed conditional use is located within the Watershed Protection Overlay (WPO), whether it will be designed and operated in a manner that will protect water quality In acting on conditional use permit applications, the planning commission is authorized to recommend and the town council is authorized to impose reasonable conditions to address any possible adverse impacts of the conditional use. Conditions may pertain to but are not limited to the following: 1) Preventing or minimizing pollutants of any kind, noise, parking and traffic congestion, flood, and other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise undesirable substances or conditions. 2) Providing adequate police and fire protection. 3) Providing adequate improvements pertaining to transportation, water, sewage, drainage, recreation, landscaping, outdoor lighting, screening and buffering. 4) Establishing special requirements relating to building setbacks, off-street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of materials, duration and intensity of use, building heights, and other particular aspects of occupancy or use. 5) The period by which the use or the construction of any structure required for the use must begin. 6) The materials and methods of construction or specific design features; provided that any condition imposed in connection with a residential conditional use permit: a) Must be consistent with the objective of providing affordable housing if the applicant proposes affordable housing; and b) Must consider the impact of the condition on the affordability of housing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit Application, received 12/9/2025 2. Cover Letter 3. Site Sketch 4. Email Correspondence dated 12/23/25 4 Page 8 of 21  8,534 Sq Ft 41G-3-71 RT 27-7.60.3 & 27-12.50 Page 9 of 21 Page 10 of 21 Page 11 of 21 Page 12 of 21 Page 13 of 21 From: Caitlin Altizer <qns4kng@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 8:03 AM To: Louis Pancotti Subject: Re: 1660 Knicely Court - Family Day Home Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [WARNING]: This message originated outside of the Town of Culpeper mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Good morning, I'd like to add to my previous letter that due to being in operation for 24 hours care, that my pick up and drop off times would always be staggered. I will make sure that the schedules in place do not have the same pick up times to make a traffic jam in the court. Most of my interested parents have varying schedules so this should not be an issue. Thank you, Caitlin Altizer Also, I should be dropping the application of for the permit on the fence sometime today. Thanks again for all your help! Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 4:18 PM, Louis Pancotti <lPancotti@culpeperva.gov> wrote: Good afternoon, Thank you for speaking With me over the phone this afternoon. As I mentioned, fences do require a Zoning Permit. I have attached the application to this email. Please complete it and send it back to me when you can. Once submitted, I will send you a link to where you can pay the $25 fee. For family day homes, the ordinance states that stagger pick-up and drop-off times must be staggered so that there are never more than 2 vehicles picking up or dropping off at any one time. Please provide a brief description of how this will be accomplished. You can do so by replying to this email. Page 14 of 21 Below is the tentative schedule for the Case: o 1/29/25: Introduction to Planning Commission o 2/17/25: Planning Commission Public Hearing o 3/10/25: Town Council Public Hearing When we get closer to the Public Hearing dates, I will provide instructions on the posting of a sign on the property. The sign will be provided for you. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Louis Pancotti, AICP Planner Town of Culpeper (540) 829-8261 Page 15 of 21  Zeuswyn Properties LLC 18048 Birmingham Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 September 22, 2025 To: Members of the Town of Culpeper Planning Commission Andrew Hopewell, Town of Culpeper Planning Director My wife and I, along with our daughters, are the owners of Parcel 50-1D which is at the Route 29 business/29 bypass intersection in the southwest part of town. This parcel is located immediately adjoining the interchange acceleration lane exiting Madison Road onto Hwy. 29 southbound, and it consists of approximately 21 acres. There are more than two acres of roadway, leaving about 19 acres. This is not the entire 65 acre property extending from the interchange all the way to the lake. I know you are considering how to zone our parcel. I appreciate the Town Council sending this back to the Planning Commission for further study. I'm asking you to recommend that the parcel be zoned NX so the zoning will agree with the Town’s comprehensive plan. The current proposal is for a zoning designation of Rural Residential (RR), but the Future Land Use plan has the property designated for General Commercial Mixed Uses. A stated goal of the proposed unified development ordinance (UDO) is that “the zoning ordinance should reinforce the vision and goals of the town's comprehensive plan”, so a change to RR would not meet the stated goal of the UDO. There are several points I'd like to bring to your attention to consider for your recommendation to the town council. When the parcel was brought into the town during the 2012 boundary line adjustment, it was given a zoning designation of RE (1 acre minimum lot size) even though all of the surrounding property had much denser zoning ranging from 10,000 square foot minimum lot size to very high density multifamily and commercial uses. When I pointed this out to town government at the time, I was told that even though the property was singled out for lower zoning, “don't worry about it because the future land use is mixed-use commercial”. But, when the zoning doesn't match the future land use plan companies that would like to build an office park or big box type of business are not willing to invest their resources because the property will have to be rezoned. The process takes years to complete, the outcome is uncertain, and it is very expensive. I have been told this several times by real estate acquisition specialists who have identified our property for clients who would like to build in Culpeper, and I believe the improper zoning is affecting economic development for the town. I’ve found 69 properties in the draft UDO totaling more than 133 acres that are proposed to be rezoned from residential uses to NX, yet our property is proposed for “rural large lots”. These properties range in size from.04 acres to 19 acres, which is about the same size as our parcel. The current use of most of these parcels is residential. Many are older single family homes. It appears that the parcels are being rezoned 1) because the current use is not residential, or 2) so that zoning will be in place for higher density redevelopment (which is also a stated goal of the UDO). Some of the larger parcels proposed to be changed from residential to NX zoning are publicly owned school properties. Some are privately owned church properties that may also have schools on them. It seems the assumption is that the present use will continue indefinitely, but that might not be the case. As an example, three schools (the elementary school, the “old high school, and the “new” high school) that I attended in Blacksburg all Page 16 of 21 became obsolete and were sold by Montgomery County for redevelopment. These properties are currently being used or are planned for a variety of residential and commercial uses. Let me be clear: I support every one of the proposed zoning changes to the 69 properties, because they make sense and proper zoning will be in place to match the future land use plan for those properties. The draft Ordinance Amendment, introduced September 9th, 2025 and intended to be adopted by the Town Council October 14th, 2025, states that “The new zoning map has been developed by Staff and the Planning Commission with continuous feedback from the public and reflects an understanding that the Town is approaching 100% of build out and the demand for redevelopment should be encouraged in areas designated for such development in the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map, all in an effort to preserve existing neighborhoods”. I’m concerned about the Town encouraging large lot residential development on property located at the intersection of major vehicle arteries (which is best suited for uses such as hospital expansion or offices or big box development) while at the same time changing zoning to encourage infill redevelopment in residential areas because we are approaching 100% build out. It seems that zoning our property for large residential lots will put the town in the same situation when it runs out of room again, and there will be a need to redevelop the property. The Future Land Use plan recognizes and avoids this situation. The same draft Ordinance Amendment, introduced September 9th, 2025, leads off with this: “WHEREAS, on February 13th, 2025, the Town Council of Culpeper VA, (“Council”), adopted a resolution initiating amendments to the existing Town of Culpeper Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; the primary purpose of the planned ordinance amendments was to implement the Town of Culpeper’s 2018 comprehensive plan”. Further in the same document it states “WHEREAS, the Council finds that the “Culpeper UDO Complete Draft August 2025”, implements the 2018 Town of Culpeper Comprehensive Plan and achieves the purposes of zoning as set forth in Virginia code...” Page 5 of the UDO draft (section 27-1.10.6) titled “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY” states: A. Pursuant to the Code of Virginia, § 15.2-2284, this UDO is intended to implement the vision, goals, strategies, and maps of the town's comprehensive plan and is deemed to be consistent and in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan. B. Any amendments to or actions pursuant to this UDO should be consistent with the comprehensive plan. C. An amendment to the text of this UDO is deemed consistent with and in accordance with the comprehensive plan if it complies with the vision, goals, strategies, and maps set forth in the comprehensive plan. An amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the comprehensive plan if it complies with the vision, goals, strategies, and maps set forth in the comprehensive plan. It's clear that the UDO is intended to be consistent with the town's comprehensive plan. It’s also clear that the proposed zoning for parcel 50 -1D is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Please take this into consideration when you make your zoning recommendation to the Council. Thank you. Sincerely, Al Caldwell Member, Zeuswyn Properties LLC Page 17 of 21 Page 18 of 21 Page 19 of 21 Page 20 of 21 Page 21 of 21