Code Refresh: Draft Zoning Districts and Use Provisions

Objective 4.1 of the Richmond 300 plan states: Develop zoning districts that support, protect, and enhance neighborhood character, especially in areas that are not protected by City Old & Historic Districts. This draft Article does not do that, nor does proposed zoning that is shown on the draft map, nor do the Use Permissions in Article 3.
One size does not fit all. Look at the the definitions of allowed uses in 3.3. Many of the allowed uses should not be allowed by right in a residential neighborhood. Form based design is not always going to make it all right.

This district is indeed a collection of uses "that do not readily assimilate into other zoning districts" and many of which are certainly not institutional uses, including utilities, general office, transit stops and passenger depots, and recycling centers. See 3.2.2 for the entire list of uses. Removes the Master Plan requirement and approval by Planning Commission. Some churches are in I zone, some not. Please remove non-institutional uses and return lost safeguards including requiring a Master Plan.

The reason many people want to live in Richmond is because it is a visually lovely city and green spaces and tree density in residential areas is a big part of making it beautiful. A building coverage max of 60% is far too high - if this is allowed we will lose many of our old growth trees! Trees help mitigate heat and pollution issues while supporting urban wildlife and, frankly, supporting better mental health for humans. We need our trees! Allowing developers to remove older trees by requiring them the trade off of re-planting multiple small trees would be laughable if it was not so tragic - it is the equivalent of putting a half-dozen toddlers in an NFL game to replace the work of one 250 lb linebacker. Please, please, please do not ruin our beautiful city because of pure greed!

This district should not be in the middle of a residential neighborhood, nor should it back up to 1 to 2 story residences.

In the Fan, Museum District, West Grace Street, Commercial Mixed use has been proposed without restrictions. So an existing Residential Unit could have a Brewery installed next door regardless of location by right? While there are some streets where this may be appropriate, there are other where this is egregious. Getting to a more surgical approach vs. generic, is critial.

I moved into Westover Hills because I liked living in a neighborhood with character, trees, and the convenience of walking to the library, the park, the river, and restaurants. The best part are the neighbors and the friendships you build with them. I feel the you will lose that neighborhood feeling with your proposal.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't we be addressing and resolving infrastructure issues before we even start discussing adding housing to existing neighborhoods? We have issues with our water facilities, our sewage, and our roads and sidewalks are in need of repair. There is hardly enough parking now, where will the additional automobiles park? How will you handle the additional traffic? I strongly disagree with this proposal ending all single family housing! I think this will unnecessarily destroy beautiful neighborhoods that we have in Richmond.

My neighborhood is labled CS, but a search for that term turned up no results whatsoever. I don’t need the definition of CS to know that greed is destroying our beautiful city.
Stop using the need for affordable housing as an excuse to cram ugly expensive apartments onto tiny lots. These new homes only make prices rise. Saving mature trees should be a top concern.
concern.
These plans should be redrawn by a committe that includes environmentalists and architectual historians. Developers—frequently from out of town, with no sense of place—who stand to win big $$$ should not be dictating changes to our beloved neighborhoods. WE ARE NOT HAPPY.

We already struggle with flooding from runoff. Will the storm water system be able to handle runoff from all the impervious surface allowed by the proposed changes?

All aspects of these adjustments, as a whole, definitely promote shoving as much housing on every sq ft possible. Great for developers and flippers. Seems awful for current residents and encouraging green space. I’d recommend keeping to our current zoning limits with some more flexibility on setbacks and allowing an ADU

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Richmond's draft zoning.

We encourage the City to consider adding sustainability provisions in key places. Notably, the "Allow Use Table" in Article 3 designates the Use Standards, which are established in section 3.5.2, as well as uses requiring Conditional Permits. The Use Standards could further incorporate best practices that support quality of life and resilience features appropriate to some building types, such as elevating electrical and HVAC systems above future flood levels. As the City develops the conditions for Conditional Use Permits, these are another chance to use proven approaches. For example, surface parking lots could have established conditions for bird-safe lighting; native, drought-tolerant vegetation; green infrastructure to control stormwater to preserve water quality and prevent flooding; and potentially EV charging ready spaces.

USGBC would welcome the chance to support the City with resources, examples, and further details on how sustainability measures could be included and emphasized in the zoning code, to meet the City's objectives.

Thank you for your consideration.

I object to changing the zoning to allow multiple residences on one lot where those aren't currently allowed. Residents of the city live here because we support the city. However, we do not all want the same thing. I lived in the Museum District and in the Fan for over 30 year, and loved it. Once I decided that I no longer wanted that level of density, I moved to Westover Hills area and have loved it. One of the things I relish is the wildlife that I did not have in my old neighborhoods, and the breathing room. Residents of the city pay a LOT to live in the city, be it through expensive home purchase, exorbitant real estate taxes, high rent, personal property tax, etc. Changing the game after someone has made a thoughtful and expensive choice about where to live is not fair. this change, combined with the high real estate taxes, will drive residents out of the city. Further, it will destroy the fabric of the neighborhoods, displace wildlife, and the overall feel of the city. We do NOT want to be NOVA where they build houses on any piece of land available. although that already is happening, sadly.

As Richmond is poised to significantly increase density and development, I urge the City to take this opportunity to leverage its zoning approval processes (Special Use Permit applications, etc.) to spur sustainable and resilient design and construction practices.

Follow the examples of Arlington County and Alexandria City, which have strategically implemented development 'conditions', including green building certification and additional measures, for non-by-right development proposals.

In addition, encourage still higher levels of sustainability and resilience utilizing incentive programs modeled after Arlington County's nationally-recognized Bonus Density Program.

There are many possible variations of these programs, so please work closely with the City's Office of Sustainability and consider engaging professional consulting expertise to evaluate options and flesh out the details.

Do not allow multiple dwellings on 1 property. Stratford hills is unique and is not set up like the rest of the city. No sidewalks, transportation, and poor roads. It will not be good for the city. I am against rezoning the residential and church use properties.

We can't make our city unlivable even while it is necessary to address the housing crisis. Builders MUST be required to have trees and green space to alleviate the heat generated by hard surfaces. They must also be encouraged to put solar panels on roofs and over parking lots. Richmond is already hot enough and with climate change will only become hotter. It's a cruel and unsustainable trade off to diminish our green space.

Six stories is too tall if it destroys scenic views, as in the case of Main Street below Church Hill and the Libby Hill view shed.

Four stories is too tall if it is adjacent to two story residences. Church Hill and Union Hill are historic districts and we cannot maintain their historic look with dissimilar buildings adjacent to historic buildings.

I also live in the fourth district in the Oxford area and have witnessed an enormous amount of detrimental development in our neighborhood. Several huge houses have been squeezed onto lots that were once covered in trees and provided essential habitat for the abundant wildlife we share this beautiful area with. The houses that have been built certainly do not constitute “affordable” housing. In fact, several of the homes that have been constructed in the last few years have sold for close to or over $1,000,000. The reason we love this area is because of the river, the trees and the wildlife. Please, please, please don’t take it away by making it even easier for developers to ruin this gorgeous area.

Public Comment Statement Opposing Increased Density in the City of Richmond

Planning commission,
My wife and I are residents of The Fan. We moved to Richmond approximately 6 yrs ago to escape the over development sprawl of the Washington DC metro area. I have been in the residential construction industry for over 35 yrs, focused on infill single family homes, my wife has worked with me for almost half of that. We feel that we have a good understanding of how most developers think and typically it starts with "where can I make the most money".

We operated somewhat different than most, focusing on aesthetics, timelessness and neighborhood cohesiveness.

We would like to respectfully express our opposition to the proposed rezoning that would increase residential density in our neighborhood.

As a test, we used ChatGPT to see if it would help us organize our thoughts and give us a starting point and the results were surprisingly right on target (which makes us think our line of thinking is not unique).

So, our argument AGAINST rezoning, specifically in The Fan, Museum District, Church Hill or any other historic focused & established Richmond neighborhoods is as follows (we own residential property in The Fan & Church Hill):

While we understand the goals of housing availability and city growth, we believe that increasing density throughout The City of Richmond is not in the best interest of the community—for the following reasons:
1. Infrastructure Strain
Our roads, water systems and sewers are suffering from old age and have existing problems that need to be addressed & resolved (ie: water treatment facility shutdowns, lead water lines & storm drain flooding). Since there is no true public mass transit system here, bus lines can only function well and rapidly within low traffic areas. Adding high-density housing without significant infrastructure upgrades will worsen traffic congestion, possibly overburden schools (which could use some attention instead of rezoning), and compromise essential services.
2. Loss of Neighborhood Character
The Fan, The Museum District & Church Hill have long been valued for their livability, walkability, drive-ability across the city and their cohesive, historic, residential character and already are VERY DENSE. Increasing density through mid-rise or multi-unit developments threatens to erode the very qualities that make our neighborhood visually desirable and alters the ease of moving around the city that makes it so livable. Adding density on single family lots behind existing homes should at least be limited in size (ADU only?) and not be designed to encourage developers to tear down historic homes in order to double the yield by building 2 houses at 4 stores where singles homes of 2 or 3 stories have stood for almost 120 years. Most homes also come with drivers and cars and all those cars need to park somewhere. The city has already removed parking requirements but we are still a car focused society, so the fallout from this is yet to be seen. We currently live in a 1906 2-story row house which is slated to be rezoned to 4 story mix use (Rx-4 ?). If the neighborhood is already fully built out, why encourage developers to tear down existing homes just to bring in bigger returns for their pocket books? Is it not possible to say that existing neighborhoods have zoning that DOES NOT need to change??
3. Environmental Impact
Higher density typically means reduced tree canopy, increased impervious surfaces, and greater strain on local ecosystems. Rezoning for greater density should only occur alongside a clear environmental impact study and mitigation plan or at least be focused only in areas where improvements are necessary to correct historically poor development decisions (ie: the area where the baseball stadium is).
4. Public Process and Transparency
Many residents feel that decisions around rezoning have been rushed or made without meaningful public input. Any major change to zoning should involve transparent, inclusive community engagement, not just developer-driven incentives. Especially when these developers do not reside here.
5. Affordable Housing vs. Market-Rate Density
If the goal is affordability, we should question whether these density increases actually deliver it. Too often, new “high-density” developments bring luxury units (to work in the best interest of the developer, not the community)—not affordable homes for working families. Simply allowing more units does not guarantee accessibility or equity.

In closing, we urge you to pause and reconsider this rezoning effort. Growth should not come at the expense of stability, livability, and QUALITY OF LIFE (which is currently the draw of this area & which these decisions most likely will destroy). Let’s plan for the future with intention, respect for existing communities, and a commitment to sustainable development—not reactionary upzoning.

Thank you for your time.
Alan & Barbra Adler

Please increase the setbacks. There is nothing wrong with front yards, side yards and back yards.

Please reduce the building coverage to allow for more green space.

What is the purpose of institutional zoning? What benefit does it confer on the owner? What protections does it provide for the surrounding community? Most churches and schools are surrounded by residential buildings. The zoning should revert to that of the surrounding neighborhood when it is no longer being used by a church or charitable organization.

RX- 4 should reduced to 3 story limit like was done for MX. The 3 story max is appropriate as many of these small apartment complexes are located in current residential neighborhoods with two-story limits. The 3 story is a better transition and fit.

Building height is just one of many examples where this format is lacking. It is hard for the lay person to see what is being changed from the current zoning and the rationale for making the change. As far as I can tell, most of the current “R” zoned districts have a max height of 25 feet (basically two residential floors and an attic). Why a 30% increase?

I do not see Richmond as being in a housing crisis, as there has already been a lot of new building recently, and virtually all of it terrible. I’m seeing gargantuan apartment buildings shoved in here and there, houses being built that tower over existing homes, etc. I am extremely concerned about the additional strain on Richmond’s infrastructure. Flooding and water issues are a major problem in this city. I live near Forest Hill Park, and I love the fact that we have deer and other wildlife come into our yard, but that will quickly disappear when every other neighbor decides they can make money by carving up their lot to add another home or accessory dwelling. Humans aren’t the only ones who need that green space. Please don’t pave paradise!

Richmond City Code Refresh – Resident Feedback
September 27, 2025
Dear Code Refresh Zoning Advisory Council,
This letter regards proposed changes to the zoning ordinances in Richmond. I reside in the Oxford neighborhood in the 4th District.
Character of the Neighborhood:
I edited our neighborhood newsletter for eleven years. As part of my duties, I interviewed many individuals and always asked, “What attracted you to this neighborhood?” To a person, they always included “mature trees” and “green spaces” in their response. Allowing more building in our neighborhood will degrade its beauty and severely impact its attractiveness for potential homebuyers.
Since moving here in 2013, several houses have been built (one right behind my home); the cutting of many large trees has severely impacted our neighborhood. A home recently was built on Weyburn Rd., and the new home appears to have barely 25 feet between it and the homes on either side. Allowing more building will severely affect the rural nature of some of our streets.
Environmental Degradation:
Rattlesnake Creek runs through our neighborhood. Many homes have experienced problems related to erosion due to the creek and its runoff. Increased housing will add to the drainage and degradation issues related to the creek.
Traffic:
Increased traffic will adversely impact the safety of our streets. Our neighborhood does not have sidewalks, and cars must share the narrow roads with pedestrians, baby carriages and dogs. Even now, service vehicles often park in the street, causing one lane traffic. It is already difficult to navigate streets where cars are parked.
Changing the character of Oxford would be a disservice to residents who purchased their homes under existing zoning. Further, the proposed change risks reducing home values and the tax base. We would see increased middle class migration out of the city.
I strongly oppose these changes for the above-mentioned reasons. I urge you to oppose these changes. Thank you for your attention to my concerns

Well if ain't broke fix it 'til it is, amiright?

It is complete fiction to suggest that, based on density alone, these districts will emulate the livability or charm of the Fan District.
The Fan is a Richmond treasure because of the era of construction - no developer is going to put up new construction on tear-down lots with the proportions, permanence or character of the brick and slate row houses from early 1900s. It will be a race-to-the-bottom of cheap, temporary materials in a stripped-down modernism style as we see in Scott's Addition, Shockhoe and Manchester. Then Richmond will be just like every other medium-sized U.S. city.

These setback requirements are appropriate to URBAN institutions only, and are NOT appropriate to a suburban campus.
The INS standards appear unfinished. What are governances on height, area, allowed uses etc.? Can a hospital build a gas station on-site?
One-size-does-not-fit-all. Only an SUP-like process can address the variety of settings and types of institutional uses.

Greatly support duplexes in all RD zones

Not appropriate for Oregon Hill.

Reasonable setback should apply for all residences in Oregon Hill.

I am opposed to the proposed zoning ordinance RD-A: Residential Detached Low. I realized that the high building density (and the short term renters and the new residents and all their cars) that go along with this proposal would create would be a big boost to the city's generally grossly mismanaged coffers, but sadly, I feel confident in saying that the city would not have the ability to make all of the necessary accommodations that this influx of buildings, parking places, road improvements, general all around infrastructure and people on historically tree canopied neighborhoods would require. I have minimal confidence in the city to try and take on anything beyond trying to rectify our crumbling infrastructure such as a safe and reliable water supply and crumbling and dangerous Cherokee Road. (There are many other concerning issues, but for lack of time and space could extend the 2 above examples). I know the city wants and needs money to replace all that it squanders, but since it can't keep up with what is already in its purview I suggest it not add to its docket while ruining historical neighborhoods in its money grab.

We already struggle with flooding from runoff. Will the storm water system be able to handle runoff from all the impervious surface allowed by the proposed changes?

I would like to see a map of the infrastructure that is to be paired with increased dwelling units/density (including traffic flow, sewage, water supply, green space, parking, public transportation).

Is there a "check" on the changes proposed in the Refresh? As I glance with layperson's eyes at the plans, what I am not seeing is a mechanism for a 5-year, 10-year look-back at how the changes proposed in the Refresh are playing out in positive/negative ways. Is there a tool or plan for course correction if the proposed changes are not desirable in some situations?

Maximum height limit in the MX-3 district should be 35'

The MX-6 district with 90' height limit is way to high for the Oregon Hill Historic District on the 600-700-800 blocks of West Cary Street

a rear yard setback should be required in the RA-A district

The maximum building coverage in the RA-A district should be 55%

Mixed Use should require commercial use on the entire ground floor of the building. Without doing so there is no difference between RX and MX districts.

Setbacks should not be reduced any further, at least not in neighborhoods that are close to the James River. One important reason for setbacks is to minimize lot coverage so that stormwater can be absorbed by the ground and not end up in the river, with all the contaminants it picks up along the way. Also, I see many homes with beautiful landscaping in some neighborhoods (e.g., Westover Hills, Forest Hill), and this makes excellent use of these setback areas. It is a pleasure to see what people do with their spaces. And a little space between neighbors is also nice. Not everybody wants to hear the neighbor sneeze every time they go outside. Despite the existing setbacks, we interact all the time with our neighbors and people walking their dogs by our house.

Stratford Hills is a gem. The code should NOT be changed going forward. What attracts people and families to the neighborhood is its beauty, large lot sizes, and safety. We should be encouraging this by working to improve the quality of life for ALL by focusing on schools and roads and city services -- NOT changing the core zoning of the community.

A powerful tool to incentivize development in mixed use zones while aligning with Richmond's environmental goals is to offer incentives such as bonus density or height for projects that meet a green building standard such as LEED. Arlington County does a great job of this, for example. The zoning code should incentivize green building.