Code Refresh: Draft Zoning Districts and Use Provisions

I am extremely disappointed to see that an "auto oriented commercial building" zone is even being considered for Richmond. This type of development is not good for the climate, it does not make building transit easier or more convenient in the City, it's not walkable, is is not good for stormwater runoff, and it's not a tax efficient use of our land.

Why include this zone at all? We should remove it and replace it with actual city land uses, like MX-4.

I'd support smaller primary street setbacks (i.e. 12-15'). This has a few benefits for the neighborhood and property owners:

1. Allows for more intimacy along the street (front porch is closer to passersby
2. Allows shift of generally unusable lot square footage from front yards to back yards, which unlocks:
3. More space for an ADU, parking, and/or outdoor entertaining.

If 3 stories are allowed, why not stacked tri-plex for new construction? This could add 50% more residential units to the neighborhoods that have traditionally been some of the most dense in the city and are transit lines, allowing car-free or car-light living.

This picture/example is confusing. The description is two full-sized houses and an ADU on a lot. The illustration shows four full sized houses. Is this trying to show how a current 50-foot lot can be subdivided? These illustrations should have a scale showing the lot width.

I am an urban farmer, USDA-certified, and in VSU/VT beginner farmer and rancher program, I NEED a pathway towards re-zoning towards urban ag or special permitting for Urban agriculture related activities. Urban agriculture can greatly benefit our city and the pathway towards assisting in food access. The USDA/FSA has already started to align for allowing anyone, no matter their lot size, to apply to become a USDA-certified farmer. Allowing for various community members to become urban farmers and grow their own food. The only limitation is the current zoning of lots and the process of getting a special permit for agriculture activities. My neighbors love me and what I do, we need more farmers in the city!

Requiring that the ground floor be 12' minimum regardless of residential or nonresidential use allows it to be more flexibly converted in the future as the city/market changes.

What is the purpose of these primary street/side street setbacks? Seems like wasted space unless the architect has some specific design for it.

At the June 2025 ZAC meeting both the commissioners and the consultants were receptive to reintroducing MX-4 as the default of mixed use zones. The compromise was to keep the MX-3 designation but use it sparingly.

This draft does not seem to follow through on that. Can we please reintroduce MX-4?

I am concerned that this up-zoning prioritizes the financial interests of developers instead of the stated goals of affordable housing. Likewise, I am concerned that there are no carve outs or protections for Richmond's distinct architectural identity; I do not want to see my neighbors' well-built homes demolished when they would otherwise exist for 200+ years. How can we include protections for RVA's historic architectural identity while also expanding affordable options?