bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary… Betsy Aug 27 2025 at 8:42PM on page 12
Suggestion
I completely agree.
×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.Code Refresh: Draft Zoning Districts and Use Provisions
Provide your feedback on the draft Zoning Districts and Use Provision
Share your thoughts on the Code Refresh draft Zoning Districts, Rules of Interpretation, and Use Provisions. If you missed the June Open Houses, check out the boards from the meeting here. Use the tool below to read or browse the draft document, provide general feedback, leave your comments directly on the document, and read and reply to comments from your neighbors. Comments that you leave on the document are visible to the public. Please be respectful, keep comments focused on the content, and refrain from using profanity. If you want to provide comments on the draft map, visit https://bit.ly/JuneCodeRefreshDraft. Please provide your comments by September 10, 2025.
Add comment
Betsy Aug 27 2025 at 8:35PM on page 10
Front lawns and side yards should not be considered wasted space as there is value in green space.
Betsy Aug 27 2025 at 8:31PM on page 10
The argument for keeping RD-A zoning, as opposed to not having it at all, is to allow Richmond to have a variety of housing options and neighborhoods. If you lose RD-A zoning, is it possible that you will see people leave Richmond to go to the nearby counties?
Melissa Savenko Aug 27 2025 at 6:30PM on page 7
Question
Why is there no graphic illustrating RA-C?
in reply to Chris Alexander's comment
Melissa Savenko Aug 27 2025 at 6:24PM on page 6
Suggestion
Charles, you know I respect you, but here I have to disagree. If someone can pay $1M for a Fan home, knock it down, and build a 6-unit of condos, each selling for $700,000, the numbers ABSOLUTELY work. There have to be legitimate protections for historic neighborhoods. These neighborhoods preceded the zoning code, so they weren't created based on the 1970s standards everyone hates.
in reply to Sarah Hansen's comment
Melissa Savenko Aug 27 2025 at 6:15PM on page 6
Suggestion
I do not think there was enough public engagement over the Affordable Housing Plan to claim the public endorsed the idea of a duplex + ADU on every lot. I have not met anyone, other than members of the Zoning Advisory Council, who were even aware that's where the "standard" came from. I also agree enough time has not passed to see how ADUs will impact existing neighborhoods.
in reply to Joseph Carlisle's comment
Melissa Savenko Aug 27 2025 at 6:11PM on page 6
Question
But is the City adding more RD-A, or just zoning current R1 and other similar zoning categories as what they currently are?
Melissa Savenko Aug 27 2025 at 6:09PM on page 6
Suggestion
It is my understanding the RC designation is only being used for currently existing trailer park locations. This is unfortunate, as it could be the perfect opportunity to create small homes on small lots, which could be affordable starter homes for people starting out. I wish the City would designate some additional parcels - maybe certain currently vacant or institutional land on the North-South Pulse route - as RC in order to incentivize starter homes. This kind of affordable housing seems to be missing from the re-zoning conversation.
in reply to Gwynne Cunningham's comment
Joseph Carlisle Aug 27 2025 at 9:50AM on page 25
Four stories is a completely appropriate height for a city like Richmond. Restricting development to just three stories or an arbitrary 30-foot height limit is an unnecessary request.
We should not be limiting the potential of our city just because some homes are built adjacent to commercial properties.
We should not be limiting the potential of our city just because some homes are built adjacent to commercial properties.
in reply to Gwynne Cunningham's comment
Joseph Carlisle Aug 27 2025 at 9:26AM on page 24
Really! Zero! Can you believe it? It's crazy! Imagine two structures attached to one another. How could anyone live this way?
Attached buildings have been around for centuries. There's no sense in wasting space on useless setbacks. I have 3 feet of set backs on both side of my home, and it's annoying. I have to mow it, and it just collects street trash. Besides allowing me to more easily walk around the house it's dead space.
Attached buildings have been around for centuries. There's no sense in wasting space on useless setbacks. I have 3 feet of set backs on both side of my home, and it's annoying. I have to mow it, and it just collects street trash. Besides allowing me to more easily walk around the house it's dead space.
in reply to Copeland's comment
Joseph Carlisle Aug 27 2025 at 9:18AM on page 24
Your point about the importance of green space for physical and mental health is well-taken, and I agree completely. However, my argument isn't that people don't need green space; it's that we need a better, more equitable way to provide it. The issue isn't whether green space is necessary, but rather how we define and provide it in a growing city. The current model of every single-family home having a private, often underutilized yard is not the most efficient or sustainable way to meet our city's needs.
Where do these parks go?
Richmond already has over 170 parks, open spaces, athletic fields, playgrounds, and tot lots.
link
Building more density allows for the creation of new public parks in several ways. Many neighborhoods have underutilized commercial buildings, empty lots, or old parking lots. These areas can be redeveloped into new housing with a portion of the land dedicated to a new park. This approach adds housing and green space without demolishing homes. Not all parks have to be massive. Small, strategically placed "pocket parks" can be integrated into new developments or placed on small, vacant lots, providing residents with easy access to a bit of nature. Modern urban design can also include communal courtyards, rooftop gardens, and shared green spaces within a building's footprint, providing residents with immediate access to nature without each unit having its own private yard.
The idea that we must choose between being a "high-rise city" and the current fabric of Richmond is a false dilemma. My argument is not to turn Richmond into a high rise only city. Instead, we should create a city with diverse housing options. Allowing for higher density in certain areas doesn't mean the entire city is bulldozed and replaced. It means we're creating a city that can accommodate more people while still preserving the historic character that makes Richmond special. The goal is to evolve, not to erase.
Where do these parks go?
Richmond already has over 170 parks, open spaces, athletic fields, playgrounds, and tot lots.
link
Building more density allows for the creation of new public parks in several ways. Many neighborhoods have underutilized commercial buildings, empty lots, or old parking lots. These areas can be redeveloped into new housing with a portion of the land dedicated to a new park. This approach adds housing and green space without demolishing homes. Not all parks have to be massive. Small, strategically placed "pocket parks" can be integrated into new developments or placed on small, vacant lots, providing residents with easy access to a bit of nature. Modern urban design can also include communal courtyards, rooftop gardens, and shared green spaces within a building's footprint, providing residents with immediate access to nature without each unit having its own private yard.
The idea that we must choose between being a "high-rise city" and the current fabric of Richmond is a false dilemma. My argument is not to turn Richmond into a high rise only city. Instead, we should create a city with diverse housing options. Allowing for higher density in certain areas doesn't mean the entire city is bulldozed and replaced. It means we're creating a city that can accommodate more people while still preserving the historic character that makes Richmond special. The goal is to evolve, not to erase.
in reply to Gwynne Cunningham's comment
Joseph Carlisle Aug 27 2025 at 9:06AM on page 24
Suggestion
I hear your concern about the heat island effect and the feel of the neighborhood. It’s an important issue. However, a jump from 40% to 80% lot coverage is exactly the kind of bold step Richmond needs to take to address our housing crisis.
While we are increasing density, we can use solutions like public parks, street trees, and green roofs to combat heat islands. A city doesn't need a sea of private lawns to be green. In fact, consolidating green space into shared, public parks is a more efficient and equitable use of land that everyone can enjoy.
The old zoning was for a different Richmond. We can't meet the needs of our growing city by wasting valuable space on individual lawns that most people don't use. We must prioritize building enough housing for everyone who wants to live here.
While we are increasing density, we can use solutions like public parks, street trees, and green roofs to combat heat islands. A city doesn't need a sea of private lawns to be green. In fact, consolidating green space into shared, public parks is a more efficient and equitable use of land that everyone can enjoy.
The old zoning was for a different Richmond. We can't meet the needs of our growing city by wasting valuable space on individual lawns that most people don't use. We must prioritize building enough housing for everyone who wants to live here.
in reply to Gwynne Cunningham's comment
Joseph Carlisle Aug 27 2025 at 9:02AM on page 24
Suggestion
I believe limiting the number of units based on parking or other baseless claims is the wrong approach for Richmond.
First, no one is entitled to street parking in front of their house. It's a public resource, and in a city, it's normal to have to park a block or two away. If a resident needs a guaranteed spot for a disability, they can and should apply for a reserved handicapped space.
Second, if we build based on car capacity instead of human need, we'll never have a truly walkable or sustainable city. The way to get better bus service is to build more density, which creates the demand needed to justify expanding routes and improving service.
If the goal is to have a private, reserved parking spot, the solution is to create one on your own property, not to arbitrarily cap the number of homes that can be built for other people. Richmond needs to build for people, not for cars.
First, no one is entitled to street parking in front of their house. It's a public resource, and in a city, it's normal to have to park a block or two away. If a resident needs a guaranteed spot for a disability, they can and should apply for a reserved handicapped space.
Second, if we build based on car capacity instead of human need, we'll never have a truly walkable or sustainable city. The way to get better bus service is to build more density, which creates the demand needed to justify expanding routes and improving service.
If the goal is to have a private, reserved parking spot, the solution is to create one on your own property, not to arbitrarily cap the number of homes that can be built for other people. Richmond needs to build for people, not for cars.
in reply to Gwynne Cunningham's comment
Joseph Carlisle Aug 27 2025 at 8:47AM on page 24
Suggestion
While I appreciate your concern for neighborhood aesthetics, I don't think creating a new RX-3 Zone is the right solution for Richmond's future. Limiting buildings to a three-story maximum would be a step backward for our city's growth and sustainability.
Denser, more urban neighborhoods are key to a walkable, vibrant Richmond. Restricting building height would make it harder to create the housing we desperately need, which could drive up costs for everyone. A four-story building is a reasonable way to increase density without building a high-rise. Good design can help these buildings blend in with existing homes, so they're not "visually jarring."
If the goal is to preserve a specific suburban, single-story feel, perhaps the suburbs or an HOA community would be a better fit. The future of Richmond is in building up, not out, to create a more livable and affordable city for all.
Denser, more urban neighborhoods are key to a walkable, vibrant Richmond. Restricting building height would make it harder to create the housing we desperately need, which could drive up costs for everyone. A four-story building is a reasonable way to increase density without building a high-rise. Good design can help these buildings blend in with existing homes, so they're not "visually jarring."
If the goal is to preserve a specific suburban, single-story feel, perhaps the suburbs or an HOA community would be a better fit. The future of Richmond is in building up, not out, to create a more livable and affordable city for all.
in reply to Joseph Carlisle's comment
Joseph Carlisle Aug 27 2025 at 8:30AM on page 14
You don't have to live on an 18 foot lot, but the minimum should be smaller to allow for more options when building. I'm happy with a 12 foot house, and an 18 foot wide lot. I'm sure others would be too. The more room for options the better. We shouldn't zone ourselves into less variety.
Mark Lewis Aug 25 2025 at 4:45PM on page 14
Suggestion
• Increase parking 2 or more per structure, potentially creating parking issues like the fan.
o Will we need to have a special parking permit if this continues due to the increase in vehicles?
o Will home owners be restricted to a certain number of vehicles?
• Decrease lighting on existing homes and all future constructed homes.
• If any additional structures are constructed it may affect existing homes South Facing windows
• Effect potential garden areas with the restriction of light.
• Increase potential noise with additional homes, families, traffic.
• Increase potential traffic congestion and accidents leaving and entering the neighborhood. There is NO public transportation projects to accomodate density housing.
• This will raise property values and taxes forcing out lower income folks.
• This will exacerbate residential segregation and continue to reduce the number of additional housing.
• Additional properties will limit access to opportunity and increasing cost for first time homebuyers and renters
• If there is a housing shortage why is this neighborhood being targeted and why is NO affordable housing being developed as part of their plan?
• If their goal is density- how are they working with local government with making public transportation better? Are they advocating for sidewalks? If this is approved, I suggest the developer needs to develop sidewalks around each block they build a home. All homes constructed shall have a sidewalk installed that will connect to Semmes Ave.
• Required to make alley improvements.
• Our City and neighborhood has NO infrastructure to handle additional vehicles.
• If permitted to construct homes, they should be affordable and not 800K, and should be NO less than 30% of the average persons income.
• Because of the piece by piece of building additional homes, will this impact our sewer and stormwater by the increase of additional impervious surface and additional sewer connections. How is this going to impact our storm and sewer systems. We will increase runoff volume and impact the combination system.
• The developer should be held responsible for all upgrades to public transportation along the corridor if they truly believe in density and there should be benchmarks achieved prior to additional homes being built. This would be obligation to installing ALL infrastructure to public transportation. Sidewalks and ADA ramps.
I disagree with all the proposed setbacks.
o Will we need to have a special parking permit if this continues due to the increase in vehicles?
o Will home owners be restricted to a certain number of vehicles?
• Decrease lighting on existing homes and all future constructed homes.
• If any additional structures are constructed it may affect existing homes South Facing windows
• Effect potential garden areas with the restriction of light.
• Increase potential noise with additional homes, families, traffic.
• Increase potential traffic congestion and accidents leaving and entering the neighborhood. There is NO public transportation projects to accomodate density housing.
• This will raise property values and taxes forcing out lower income folks.
• This will exacerbate residential segregation and continue to reduce the number of additional housing.
• Additional properties will limit access to opportunity and increasing cost for first time homebuyers and renters
• If there is a housing shortage why is this neighborhood being targeted and why is NO affordable housing being developed as part of their plan?
• If their goal is density- how are they working with local government with making public transportation better? Are they advocating for sidewalks? If this is approved, I suggest the developer needs to develop sidewalks around each block they build a home. All homes constructed shall have a sidewalk installed that will connect to Semmes Ave.
• Required to make alley improvements.
• Our City and neighborhood has NO infrastructure to handle additional vehicles.
• If permitted to construct homes, they should be affordable and not 800K, and should be NO less than 30% of the average persons income.
• Because of the piece by piece of building additional homes, will this impact our sewer and stormwater by the increase of additional impervious surface and additional sewer connections. How is this going to impact our storm and sewer systems. We will increase runoff volume and impact the combination system.
• The developer should be held responsible for all upgrades to public transportation along the corridor if they truly believe in density and there should be benchmarks achieved prior to additional homes being built. This would be obligation to installing ALL infrastructure to public transportation. Sidewalks and ADA ramps.
I disagree with all the proposed setbacks.
Bill Ellis Aug 24 2025 at 7:00PM on page 3
Suggestion
We've been told that the purpose and intent of the Code Refresh is to increase affordable housing. "Affordable" here means that a person earning the mean salary of Richmond, VA of $62,671 could afford to buy and maintain the property. This would be a property valued at $195,000 to $260,000. Home ownership has documented benefits including wealth accumulation, neighborhood/family stability, pride of ownership among other benefits.
We've been told by several of Richmond's Planning / Zoning experts that building high-end properties will create affordable housing. When asked please explain, how does building expensive housing create less expensive housing. Their reply was reply was a long the lines of it's supply and demand; it's the industry orthodoxy. They have no academic study nor account from another city that has gone through a density increasing project to justify this claim.
Supply & Demand may have some impact on affordability within similar priced homes. However, the number of new expensive homes has no effect on the house prices several levels down. The reality is that builders want to build expensive homes because that is where they can pocket big profits.
After scouring the internet for evidence supporting the claim that increasing the number of expensive homes will impact the price of entry level homes aka "affordability", it actually shows something different. The accumulated experience of other cities is that the only way to increase affordable housing is to build small houses on small lots.
If a goal of the Code Refresh is to increase affordability to benefit the young resident, the City must motivate builders to also build inexpensive homes. Perhaps there can be a rule of thumb, for every two homes over $800,000, the builder is required to build three homes under $300,000. This is the cost of accessing the Richmond market.
We've been told by several of Richmond's Planning / Zoning experts that building high-end properties will create affordable housing. When asked please explain, how does building expensive housing create less expensive housing. Their reply was reply was a long the lines of it's supply and demand; it's the industry orthodoxy. They have no academic study nor account from another city that has gone through a density increasing project to justify this claim.
Supply & Demand may have some impact on affordability within similar priced homes. However, the number of new expensive homes has no effect on the house prices several levels down. The reality is that builders want to build expensive homes because that is where they can pocket big profits.
After scouring the internet for evidence supporting the claim that increasing the number of expensive homes will impact the price of entry level homes aka "affordability", it actually shows something different. The accumulated experience of other cities is that the only way to increase affordable housing is to build small houses on small lots.
If a goal of the Code Refresh is to increase affordability to benefit the young resident, the City must motivate builders to also build inexpensive homes. Perhaps there can be a rule of thumb, for every two homes over $800,000, the builder is required to build three homes under $300,000. This is the cost of accessing the Richmond market.
Mike Aug 24 2025 at 4:14PM on page 27
Suggestion
I'm adding a general comment. I am pro density and pro BRT, however, adding a limit of 6 stories to the area near Chamberlayne and Azalea is completely insane. I would certainly be in favor of 4 stories, but only on the two back-to-back lots before e. Seminary. Jumping the street to the lots on the other west side of e. Seminary means the building will tower over any houses on W. Seminary. I lived in London for 5 years. I've seen what this looks like. It destroys neighborhoods and communities, blocks the light for the houses and lowers their value.
I would also be in favor of 6 stories on the east side of seminary. That area has very wide lots and also has commercial rental units. I think anything replacing the current units should include accommodation for lower rent for a percentage of the units as it will clearly displace current residents.
Finally, my god, the lack of setbacks is terrible. Look at the buildings on Leigh street near Lowes. They are directly on the sidewalk. Zero green space, all impermeable surfaces. Concrete jungle and heat island. Yeah, I know builders want every inch, but maintaining green areas and setbacks is what makes areas attractive and livable.
Finally, it will be shame to lose the tree cover on Chamberlayne. I think it would be better to take an existing lane for the busses or figure out a way to leave at least half of the current median. There is also a need to replant the trees on either side of Chamberlayne.
In summary, it would be great if the current plan, which is some theoretical idea that only and academic with no practical experience would suggest, should be modified to increase density, but in a way that maintains neighborhoods and greenspace. Surely that's possible.
I would also be in favor of 6 stories on the east side of seminary. That area has very wide lots and also has commercial rental units. I think anything replacing the current units should include accommodation for lower rent for a percentage of the units as it will clearly displace current residents.
Finally, my god, the lack of setbacks is terrible. Look at the buildings on Leigh street near Lowes. They are directly on the sidewalk. Zero green space, all impermeable surfaces. Concrete jungle and heat island. Yeah, I know builders want every inch, but maintaining green areas and setbacks is what makes areas attractive and livable.
Finally, it will be shame to lose the tree cover on Chamberlayne. I think it would be better to take an existing lane for the busses or figure out a way to leave at least half of the current median. There is also a need to replant the trees on either side of Chamberlayne.
In summary, it would be great if the current plan, which is some theoretical idea that only and academic with no practical experience would suggest, should be modified to increase density, but in a way that maintains neighborhoods and greenspace. Surely that's possible.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:52PM on page 29
Suggestion
Yay that you have included a MX-3 designation! Similarly, you need to create a RX-3 designation. This is needed even more so where there are purely residential neighborhoods. Why should "Mixed Use" have a 3 story category and not have a RX-3? Please! This still allows for a lot of growth, while not dwarfing neighborhood properties. Otherwise modest neighborhoods will become surrounded by 4-story castle walls, creating dark "moats" of small houses in the middle of these "walls".
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:47PM on page 25
Suggestion
Any story that is more than one story taller than existing neighbors needs to have a mandatory stepbacks on any higher level greater than the one-story difference. This will allow higher levels to have windows that look across a neighbor's back yard, rather than looking straight down into it.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:43PM on page 25
Question
Need to explain what "Active Depth Minimum" means.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:42PM on page 25
Suggestion
4 Stories is way too tall for some zones that are near small neighborhoods! Please create a RX-3 Zone with a building height of 30 feet!
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:40PM on page 24
Suggestion
At least 5 feet here, or a lawnmower won't fit between buildings and fences. Weeds will grow in these narrow spaces and look awful.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:39PM on page 24
Suggestion
Zero? Really? C'mon - let's have at least a little breathing room between buildings. We need airflow in our often-stifling-hot City! Especially as density increases. Additional housing is great, but let's not make Richmond a boiling hot place with no room for trees.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:37PM on page 24
Suggestion
Zero? Really? There needs to be SOME breathing room between buildings! Change this to 5 feet at least!
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:36PM on page 24
Suggestion
80 percent lot coverage creates heat islands and no breezes for people who live there or neighbors - yuck. Current zoning for properties being slated for new huge upzoning increases were previously zoned things like R0-1, which only permitted 40% lot coverage. A jump from 40 to 80% is too much! How about some compromise/incremental change here - like 50%? This still allows a lot of new housing, but will look and feel better to both new and existing Richmonders!
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:31PM on page 24
Suggestion
There needs to be a maximum number of units designated, especially where a new big apartment building would be next to a small neighborhood. Otherwise, new building residents will park in the nearby neighborhood, creating congestion and displacing current parking used by homes in front of or near their homes. Hiking blocks away from one's home isn't fair or safe. It discriminates against people who are elderly and/or have disabilities. Richmond does not yet have adequate bus service to get people to where they need to go - once this is in place, zoning can be revisited.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:27PM on page 24
Suggestion
There needs to be a RX-3 Zone! Please create this! A 3-story building maximum is appropriate in small neighborhoods where neighboring properties are one story. A 4 story building next door to a one-story home is visually jarring and will make our City look awkward and ugly.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:23PM on page 15
Question
Does N/A mean zero? If so - needs to be breathing room between houses! This needs to be clarified!
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:23PM on page 15
Question
Does N/A mean Zero? Not good! This needs to be clarified.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:22PM on page 15
Question
Does N/A mean zero? Not good!
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:21PM on page 15
Suggestion
Reduce building height to 30 feet. This is reasonable for 3 story properties. Otherwise, developers will try to cram 4 stories into a 35- foot height space.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:19PM on page 14
Question
Why is this N/A? Does this mean Zero?
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:18PM on page 14
Question
Why is this N/A? Does this mean Zero?
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:17PM on page 14
Suggestion
Change alley setback to 5 feet. Otherwise, there will be weeds growing in 3 foot patches between new buildings and fence lines. (Current R-5 Zoning is 5 foot alley setback).
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:15PM on page 14
Suggestion
Change rear setback to 5 feet. 3 feet will hardly allow a lawnmower in to cut grass! (Current R-5 zoning is 5 feet for rear setback).
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:14PM on page 14
Suggestion
Change side setback to 5 feet. 3 feet is barely wide enough to fit a lawnmower! (Current R-5 Zoning is 5 feet).
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:12PM on page 14
Suggestion
Change this to 20 feet - this will still allow for growth and density, but will help any new building to blend in with current buildings (R-5 current zoning is 25 feet for front setback).
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:10PM on page 14
Suggestion
75% lot coverage is too much! Bring this down to 50% AT MOST! (Current R-5 zoning is 35%, so this is still growth in density!) We Richmond City taxpaying residents need some airflow and green space where trees can be planted, or airflow will stagnate, and we'll be in an even more intense heat bubble than we already are.
Gwynne Cunningham Aug 24 2025 at 3:03PM on page 6
Suggestion
RD-C setbacks need to be wider - suggest 20 feet. This will help new development blend in better with existing neighborhood (current setbacks in R-5 zone are 25 feet). Rear and alley setbacks need to be wider than 3 feet - suggest the current R-5 of 5 feet). Maximum lot coverage should be reduced from 75% to 50% AT MOST (currently R-5 is 35%). Otherwise, city temperatures will rise, and breezes will be blocked. There should also be step backs where height differentials would be too jarring (if neighboring properties are lower than one story less than new building).
Bill Ellis Aug 24 2025 at 8:22AM on page 14
Suggestion
These parameters would force a driveway to be directly in front of the house in violation of Parking Location rule: Parking between building and street - NO
A lot width of 25 feet with a 9 foot setback on each side means that parking would have to be between the house and the street.
A much smaller set back would be better 2 or 3 feet perhaps
A lot width of 25 feet with a 9 foot setback on each side means that parking would have to be between the house and the street.
A much smaller set back would be better 2 or 3 feet perhaps
Jeff Patrick Aug 21 2025 at 1:39PM on page 4
Suggestion
We are absolutely opposed to the proposed rezoning in the Museum District. It is just one more step in destroying the charm and beauty of the area. This looks like step one followed to be followed by the next rezoning that allows for yet more unbridled high occupancy construction. We do not want or need this rezoning here in the museum district. How about working on our ancient sewer and water infrastructure? It’s not going to help adding more stress to it. The reasoning that more taxes will help falls on deaf ears as the city pursues more boondoggle projects that never address the fact that present conditions continue to deteriorate.
anonymous Aug 21 2025 at 9:38AM on page 8
Suggestion
Would like to see this higher for max building coverage.
in reply to Chris Alexander's comment
john wilson Aug 21 2025 at 9:33AM on page 6
If you look at the existing homes in the areas marked for RD-C, they are almost all sized in a way that they could easily become duplexes, and indeed some of them already are. What this does is make it easier for people to add an additional unit into their existing house. The lots in these areas are also pretty big and could easily accommodate an ADU. If a house is in good shape and can easily be converted from a single family home to a duplex, then it doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense for a developer to buy the house, tear it down and build a duplex with an ADU. If the house is really dilapidated or undersized, then you may see that happen more often.
in reply to Andrew's comment
john wilson Aug 21 2025 at 9:13AM on page 6
The new zoning includes building standards that limit the size and location on the lot of any new building constructed. If someone buys an existing home and tears it down, what they build in its place has to conform to these standards. Many existing single family homes have the square footage needed to house 3 units. The intent of increased density is not necessarily to increase the size of buildings, but rather to allow for a greater number of units to exist in the same amount of space.
Jacob Sherrod - Strong Towns RVA Aug 20 2025 at 7:29PM on page 10
Suggestion
Generally, infrastructure costs are much more closely correlated with area, not population. By mandating high setbacks, low density, etc. we get to the point of mandating infrastructure unsustainability. We need to allow more density, especially in SFH zoning.
in reply to Joseph Carlisle's comment
Tim P Aug 18 2025 at 2:54PM on page 29
yes, we'll notice an extra story
in reply to tim p's comment
Kevin Cianfarini Aug 15 2025 at 8:20AM on page 12
I agree. We should be encouraging parking on the rear of homes if possible. Successfully doing so would require greatly reducing or eliminating the primary street setback, which I support.
I'm worried that the large setback requirement paired with the ability to have parking in front of a building will greatly reduce people's chances to "know your neighbor".
Furthermore, in east end areas where RD-B is current proposed (Montrose, Fulton Hill, Fulton Bottom), there's a notable lack of sidewalk infrastructure. Allowing parking in between the front of a building and the street encourages people to obstruct sidewalks which will eventually get built, making them less useful. This is particularly concerning for people with disabilities who cannot simply walk around a vehicle obstructing the sidewalk.
My concern is illustrated by the attached picture.
link;f=1&nofb=1&ipt=d176aa468ea792ac8216d84d62ba846d49da72ce1389d6edb81b30b29c61462e
I'm worried that the large setback requirement paired with the ability to have parking in front of a building will greatly reduce people's chances to "know your neighbor".
Furthermore, in east end areas where RD-B is current proposed (Montrose, Fulton Hill, Fulton Bottom), there's a notable lack of sidewalk infrastructure. Allowing parking in between the front of a building and the street encourages people to obstruct sidewalks which will eventually get built, making them less useful. This is particularly concerning for people with disabilities who cannot simply walk around a vehicle obstructing the sidewalk.
My concern is illustrated by the attached picture.
link;f=1&nofb=1&ipt=d176aa468ea792ac8216d84d62ba846d49da72ce1389d6edb81b30b29c61462e
in reply to Glenn Telfer's comment
Glenn Telfer Aug 14 2025 at 9:48AM on page 16
Suggestion
To clarify, I was referring to existing front and rear setbacks. For the draft ordinance, there should be at least 25 feet where parcel adjoins rear of another parcel and at least 10 feet where it adjoins side of another parcel.
Glenn Telfer Aug 14 2025 at 9:44AM on page 16
Suggestion
This needs to be more specific for parcels without street frontage. 3 feet on all sides is not enough. Suggest front setback applies where parcel adjoins the back of another parcel and rear setback applies where parcel adjoins side of another parcel.
View all
Comments
Close