Code Refresh Draft Two

This is such a massive disappointment. When I saw the first draft I was very optimistic, it really did seem like RVA was going to be a leader in walkability and development and become a city where I could one day afford to buy in. I come back and apparently the committee completely acquiesced to NIMBYs. I should have known the first draft was too good to be true. How many people who want walkability and an affordable city have to show to meetings to make it clear that we DON'T want our city to be nimby car-dependent slop??????

I applaud the City for addressing what constitutes a national problem, i.e. the exorbitant cost of shelter BUT as usual Richmond fails the grade pertinent to solutions. A principal variable relevant to said cost relates to real estate taxes. It is obviously NOT the sole variable but it is a significant factor in precluding access to shelter and in particular is often cost prohibitive for Gen Z prospective buyers. However, instead of doing the right thing and rightsizing a bloated Richmond government that has grown by more than 50 percent in the last decade and heeding the advice of City Councilwomen Sarah Abubaker and Reva Trammell the City or at least some persons want to divert attention and pretend as though the City isn't partly responsible for the cost increases. The current code refresh draft though markedly better than the first will not address the real shortcomings in Richmond relevant to access to housing NOR will it safeguard the character of neighborhoods including what Richmond has won many accolades for and specifically our urban forest and tree canopy. Though advocates for code refresh and more density have noble hearts I am afraid that their heads are absent any wisdom.

The vested rights language is quite unclear. Given the City's lengthy application/approval processes, I'd suggest that complete applications submitted before the effective date be covered.

There are flaws in both process and content. Before any comprehensive rezoning should take place, the ZAC should be disbanded and both the planning commission and the Department of Planning and Review need to be reformed to provide sensible and equitable code. Rodney Poole and Kevin Vonck must be replaced. They have betrayed the trust and the best interests of the Community. It’s become a sad, worn out joke now.

"obstruction of light and air" is excessively vague and could potentially be used to argue against any structure above a single story, which would be problematic for achieving the number of new housing units needed for community stability and affordability.

I like the draft 2 addition of small neighborhood shops/cafes at intersections in residential neighborhoods!

I like the idea that you can build a second unit if you keep the existing historic home on the property. But I worry with property coverage maximums, it might not be possible to add another unit along with the existing home in a lot of historic neighborhoods. I’d love to see more freedom to cover your lot with housing if you keep the existing structure. I love historic neighborhoods but would love to squeeze more housing in.

I’d like to see Chamberlayne in Ginter Park have higher density since it’s a future major transit line.

Incredibly frustrating and disappointing that the zoning refresh is being watered down to placate NIMBYs. This will only serve to further increase sprawl, keep cost of living unaffordable for most, and further damage the environment.