Code Refresh Draft Two

I object to many of the changes being proposed, as they are not in the best interest of existing homeowners, nor those seeking affordable housing. It will provide for additional housing, but it will not necessarily, in fact more than likely will not be affordable.
Here are some of the specific changes that need to be corrected in the next draft of this Refresh document. For RD-A Residential District Low:
• With any lot that is 90 feet or more across, you would be able to build two additional structures in your backyard. In our area, that is the majority of lots in the neighborhoods along the Huguenot corridor, south of the James. As it is currently written, you can add two structures (assuming the original home is kept): a normal sized house, the other a less than 1000 square foot unit. OR you can build a duplex. Note that the City has said that duplexes can be built on your lot via the Refresh meeting in January and in the document itself, see Proposal pages 2-6 and 3-5. In an update on questions our district representative has reported that the City now says that is not correct, however it is definitely listed as allowed in our zoning district RD-A, as listed on the pages 2-6 and 3-5 of Draft 2. DUPLEXES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RD-A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOW.
• The restrictions of building distances from the lot lines have been changed to now be 9' off the lot line, HOWEVER, you can build up to 0 (yes, zero) inches off of the lot line in certain building designs. Proposal page 2-73. LOT LINES AND DISTANCES BETWEEN STRUCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN 20’.
• The height restrictions for buildings are being changed to allow the new buildings to be 14 feet taller than the existing buildings around them, to a maximum of 35'. To put that into perspective, our tri level homes in this area are about 20 feet tall, so the proposal would allow a 3 STORY duplex or home to be built in the lot next yours. HEIGHT RESTRICTION SHOULD BE EQUAL ONLY TO THE HEIGHT OF THE TALLEST ADJOINING PROPERTY HOUSES.
• You can subdivide your lot into 3 lots and sell them
• There is no requirement to provide onsite parking, meaning that the excess of cars would need to park on the street. With our drainage ditches and narrow roads, it would virtually turn the streets into single lane usage. PARKING ON DIVEDED LOTS AND WITH ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES MUST INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT FOR ONSITE PARKING AREAS.
• The zoning district for the two churches on Duryea Drive are being proposed to be changed to MX-3, which allows up to a 3-story residential, commercial, or mixed-use building. This includes rowhouses, stacked townhouses, multiplexes, and apartments

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I sincerely hope that you take these recommendations into consideration for Draft #3.

More green infrastructure should be encouraged through zoning. Make permeable area requirments for new projects. Set impervious surface max rations. Set storm water run off limits. Increase tree shading/minimum canopy coverage. Encourage raingardens and bioswales. Require native vegetation.

Group living should be allowed in more than the RM-C area. (Notably sobriety living should not have to go through the political debate of neighborhood associations and city council - as they will likely be denied - to exist.)

Remove the Preservation Bonus as it discourages duplexes (BUT the code allows for a single family home to be demolished and replaced by a McMansion).

Reduce side setbacks as changed in the second version of Code Refresh for RA, RM-A, RM-B.

Return to the height restrictions, maximum building coverage percentages and lot sizes recommended in the first version of Code Refresh.

Create more commercial nodes in Randolph and Maymont.

We need more micronodes on the Southside. Also, anything you can do to encourage subterranean or built parking lots rather than seas of streetlevel parking lots.

With its one size fits all attitude toward density, the effect of rezoning will not create more affordable housing opportunities and instead will drive long time residents out of the city. Property values will rise and with them taxes.

People still drive cars and will in the future. Traffic and parking issues are only increasing. Pedestrians are being injured and killed all too frequently. Code Refresh has a responsibility to consider the impacts that more density will have on introducing more traffic and parking challenges.

Richmond needs more, not fewer trees, lawns, gardens and greenspaces. These should include an emphasis on residential spaces and commercial spaces–not just public parks. Tree removal permits should be required for any tree over 4” in diameter as part of construction permits. What happened to Richmond’s goals of limiting runoff from impervious surfaces into stormwater?

The changes to institutional zoning need more work. The City is putting neighborhoods with large institutional owners at risk.

People are attracted to Richmond because of the unique qualities of different neighborhoods. Church Hill is distinct from the Fan, Northside is different from the West of the Boulevard. Code Refresh in its heavy handed treatment seems aimed at erasing the distinguishing qualities of these neighborhoods.

The current version of Code Refresh is too heavy handed and lacks a sensitive approach to both provide affordable opportunities and retain the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

For the Downtown Neighborhood Association, we remain quite concerned about the proposed MXU and MX13. Architectural integrity and aesthetics help to define the Richmond Arts District, ensuring character preservation and accessibility for patrons, who are residents and visitors, and for the business owners and non-profits who invest in and populate the area. The Richmond Arts District and its surroundings are a part of the Broad Street Old and Historic District. We want assurances that this designation will supersede any other suggestive or real zoning change. The Richmond Arts District is the heart of the city, and we want people to feel warm and welcomed and not alienated by development that is the antithesis of this desire.

As this is a percentage, why should this be different than the 40% coverage in RD-B?

The core issue are focused upon misrepresenting citizens of Richmond homeowners in ideology enforced due realtors gaining control of Richmond City Planning. These commissioners operate on a level of oversight processing zoning objectives having personal CONFLICTs OF INTEREST. THAT is corrupt. The realtors and associates are disconnected from human values of long time local residents and home centered ( maintaining future family based criteria) community values or in regard to cultural integrity attitudes by resisted and suppressed by realtors. Promoters of Code Refresh are dismissive unique local issues. Numerous being realtors digging in their heels for profiteering and enrichment involving overwhelming property values by cooperating and bringing to Richmond outside corporate investors destroying integrity within Richmond neighborhoods. At the helm has been Rodney Poole over more than a decade packing the Richmond City Planning Commission networking with partisans, strongly committed to totalitarian tactics under a 'code' being a word defined in part: especially for the purposes of secrecy. The motive defines betrayal of Richmond City Zoning serving tax payers long invested as families and friends in business, occupations and advocations.

The Mayor and City Council are determined to implement in Richmond the worst aspects housing and zoning regulations implemented in Northern Virginia. Density does not produce affordable housing. If this were true, Northern Virginia would have the lowest housing costs in the Commonwealth.

Density is not environmentally friendly. If this were true, Northern Virginia would not require vehicle emissions tests on vehicles. The City itself estimates that Richmond will lose over 66% of its tree canopy when this proposal is implemented.

This Zoning Proposal is a developer's dream come true. Developers can build an unlimited number 'egg crate' apartments on MX3 sites without considering parking, with narrower hallways and with fewer safety exits.

The City Administration, including the Mayor and City Council, have determined new residents will just have to fight it out with current residents for increasingly limited street parking. People stuck in the Egg Crate apartments and lacking on-demand transportation will develop 'work at home' businesses such as drug sales and prostitution.

Members of the current City Administration who support this Zoning Proposal are probably hoping to move on after it has been passed so they won't have to deal with the outcomes.

The Mayor and City Council should publicly release the campaign contributions that they have received from developers, lobbyists and others who are advocating for the approval of this Zoning Proposal.

This is not an appropriate designation for a current R-5 area. This is a radical 100% increase in density. This only makes sense for a neighborhood that has a considerable number of parcels with small lot widths. There should be an empirical formula for making this determination. For instance, the average lot width is 37 feet wide or less.

I am very concerned that code refresh is moving too quickly. Are we taking time to truly understand the impacts? I am all for affordable housing but I do not understand how these code changes will create more affordable housing. From what I observe, squeezing in extra dwellings on a lot will result in more residents (more traffic, stress on services) but not more affordable homes. And what about the charm of our older neighborhoods? That cannot be replaced! Richmond is a city of lovely and charming neighborhoods. I am a resident of the Carillion Neighborhood and I love that our area has a nice variety of housing sizes and prices, creating a vibrant and diverse neighborhood. However, some of our streets are already crowded, with cars parked on both sides of the narrow streets, so adding housing density would make this a nightmare. I am afraid that the people who will benefit most from this will be not home buyers, and not our city, it will be the developers. Please take time to review this carefully and listen to input before irreversible changes are made.

I have lived in Richmond for almost 5 years, have lost power several times and water 2 times in 2025. I am against code refresh. Adding density to a aged infrastucture is irresponsible and will only benefit developers, not the current or future residents.

The wholesale change in neighborhood single family zoning from R2 to RDA is wrong. If someone wants to add a XYZ structure on their property (even with restrictions as stated) then that should be allowed only as a case-by-case zoning permit and allow affected neighbors the right to be involved with the decision. Otherwise control is lost.

I am against the entire code refresh proposed change. The city is teaming up with the developers and it is all about greed. This code refresh would destroy our quiet neighborhoods. The increase in density would destroy the vegetation, the peace and quiet, and create massive traffic congestion. There is no plausible reason for increasing the density. There are homes going up everywhere outside of Richmond. Annex them if you must but do not destroy our beautiful neighborhoods.

This is a wonderful step forward for our city and I’m proud of Richmond and all the people who’ve worked to make it happen.

Current conversations are often disingenuous. Accessible, truly affordable housing is a critical goal, but it is a regional issue as are projected units of housing needed. We need to be accurate in stating a need shared by multiple jurisdictions. And many proposed zoning changes will in fact incentivize private development and exacerbate affordable/market rate/upscale housing IMbalance. Numbers of new housing units does not equate with number of new affordable units. Much of what is already being constructed is a long stretch from affordable. True affordability is not currently on the table.

I highly recommend pushing for more housing density and mixed use districts. We need 15 minute neighborhoods, and we need affordable houses now.

Richmond is full of urban heat islands, and in much of the city, the amount of paving, noise, air, and sound pollution, and lack of trees are health and environmental hazards. Please, beyond parks, do all you can to preserve even small green spaces and mature native trees throughout city neighborhoods. They make all the difference in the world to the health, well-being, and connectedness of communities.

In addition to areas considered "historic" due to the individual structures along, please also consider neighborhoods that (due to their social, environmental, and spatial fabric, honor the living environment of historic communities that have preserved their neighborliness and much of their culture and atmosphere for 100+ years (like Westwood).

As a current renter, I am in support of more housing options from sizes, types, and price points such as duplexes and ADUs. There should be new housing opportunities across all neighborhoods to encourage affordability and growth. As of now, there are limited options to find permanent residence close to reliable public transportation. With this limited supply, people are unwilling to move which creates less housing opportunities for everyone. Overall, I am in support of the Code Refresh to help Richmond grow and more equitable for all.

I would be curious to know how many of the new apartment buildings along Semes and other areas in the city have vacancies before we start new buildings. We can’t let developers make decisions for us!

By the wide-open nature of Allowed Uses on an Institutional parcel, it is imperative that any such proposal be governed under the Special Use Process, already in place. Here's why - with Institutions scattered within residential areas, each case will be different and affect the neighbors and City infrastructure in unique ways. It is important that the Public Input aspect of SUP be utilized to clarify the relationship between institutions and their neighbors. (Personal Note) I have designed Institutional campuses over the USA for 47 years, and every institution understands, and allots a budget / timeline for a SUP - type process, in respect to their context.
Only commercial/apartment developers, posing as institutions, whine and cry about the cost and delay of SUPs, exposing their singular proforma-driven focus and their disregard for the City.

A big question looms - if State allows Inclusionary Zoning, how will it be integrated into CR? Or is it a City Council ordinance overlaying all zoning classifications? Other State localities have had this, but Richmond has lagged - At approx. 3000 new units of Market Rate apts. annually added over past few years, the "Opportunity Cost" to the City's stated goal of affordable housing is staggering.

I am against code refresh. We don't need more houses and apartments vying for the outdated

sewers and utilities. Look at the sewer issues, the 100+ year old pipes and the outdated water treatment plant we currently have. Adding more people to aging systems will cause chaos and drain our resources. If this passes the city will lose people. I know of many who already have exit plans in place if this passes. Just fix our outdated systems!

How will these changes not push current residents living in single residences out of the city due to changes in quality of life such as increased traffic, congestion, noise, minimal night sky. Increasing mixed use increases revenue for the city without caring about the citizens currently living here. Correct?

I don't see anything in here about tree protection for established tree during building!

I learned recently that Austin, TX has an ordinance that requires to protect a tree's critical root zone. I'm not aware of any such ordinances existing above a certain diameter size but this could be a way to protect the City's tree canopy during new building projects (which sometimes call for removing established trees).

Here's the city code: 3.5.2 Preservation
 link

Here's a presentation about it: link

I am concerned about the proposed zoning for churches and religious institutions in Richmond. There is too much incentive for these organizations to sell or lease property to developers, to sell or tear down historic religious building, and/or fill in surrounding open space without parking provisions or concern to the impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Potential solutions have been proposed that might help address some of these issues: 1) Create a new zoning category for small nonprofit institutions. This could be based on lot size or number of buildings. The rules for this category could be similar to large institutions, but without the requirement for a master development plan.
2) to reduce restrictions on use for non-institutional purposes, make the MX-3 standards available for these institutions only if the new owner agrees to preserve 80% of the existing structures.
3) using a non-religious definition for determining which parcels currently owned by these institutions should be rezoned.

I would personally like to see Special Use Permits to be required for religious properties so the surrounding neighbors could have input into what is built in their neighborhood

A main goal stated in this document is to protect against flooding, which would only become worse with the addition of new houses, apartments, and business. A lot that is covered 80% by impervious surface is a recipe for disaster. Richmond's storm water system, for which we have been paying additional fees, is still inadequate for the current load, much less a massive increase of paved/built surfaces. I live on W. Roanoke Street near Forest Hill Park, which becomes a river when it rains. Downhill from us, Dunston Ave. has flooded multiple times. See link. I do not want to see my neighbors adding additional homes to their lots, making this problem worse.

Code Refresh is necessary, but filled with perils. Changes need to be measured and benefits weighed. It cannot look too far into the future. The variables are too uncertain and the risks of unfettered development too great. Incremental changes that can be evaluated and adjusted, as necessary, will serve current residents and strengthen the future of Richmond.

Thank you for listening at the public sessions. Code Refresh, version 2, reflects many positive adjustments. That said, Code Refresh, version 3, is not likely to be the final version. The public is more engaged with each iteration. This engagement, while taxing on staff, is a positive indication that people care and want to be involved.