Richmond Planning Commission Work Session on Code Refresh – July 8, 2026

This work session of the Richmond Planning Commission focused on the zoning code refresh, marking the transition from draft two to draft three. Staff presented key questions and sought commissioner feedback on three contentious topics: household size limits, zoning of places of worship, and the number of dwelling units on a lot. The meeting began at 5:15 PM and concluded at 6:00 PM, with a virtual participant approved via roll call.

Opening & Virtual Participation

• Chair called roll; commissioners present: Poole, Greenfield, Ebert, Pennock, White, McKenzie. Ms. Knight joined virtually from Washington, D.C. for a work conference. A motion to allow her virtual participation passed unanimously.

Staff Presentation

• Director presented the code refresh rationale: the current 50-year-old zoning code does not align with the Richmond 300 master plan goals for housing choice, walkability, economic vitality, and climate resilience.
• The code refresh process involved a pattern book study showing many existing properties are non-conforming, development scenarios from consultant RKG, input from a Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC), and over 5,000 points of public engagement.
• Three key questions for discussion:
  1. Household size: Staff proposed moving from the current limit of three unrelated persons (or eight under certain Code of Virginia provisions) to relying on the building code’s occupancy standards based on square footage per bedroom.
  2. Zoning places of worship: Staff shifted from zoning all worship properties as institutional (draft one) or mixed-use MX3 (draft two) to more contextual residential zoning (RMA, RMB, RMC, and RC – residential cottage) to allow housing while preserving neighborhood scale.
  3. Dwelling units on a lot: Staff proposed allowing three dwelling units on a lot only if the existing structure is preserved (preservation bonus), with an accessory unit up to 1,200 square feet. If the existing structure is demolished, the lot reverts to current allowances (principal unit + ADU). For lots vacant for five years, three units are permitted by right. The preservation bonus applies uniformly citywide. Staff noted 2,337 parcels citywide that have been vacant for five years or more.

Commissioner Discussion & Questions

• Commissioner Pennock supported deferring to the building code for household size, praised the preservation bonus, and inquired about curb cuts for multiple units and the compatibility of church redevelopment with neighborhood form. He suggested that rebuilt structures on deteriorated foundations should be limited to the existing footprint.
• Commissioner McKenzie asked about vacant lot verification (via assessor records) and raised concerns about the preservation bonus potentially encouraging teardowns for large single-family homes rather than duplexes. Staff noted lot coverage rules and maximum unit sizes (1,200 sq ft for secondary units) could address this.
• Ms. Knight questioned the impact of increased density on emergency services and infrastructure. Staff responded that growth along nodes and corridors is planned, and project-specific reviews (fire, public works) will still apply. She also asked about tree canopy requirements in denser districts; staff emphasized retaining lot coverage limits and the option of off-site mitigation in the vicinity.
• Commissioner White expressed concern that design standards (e.g., bicycle storage, bus stop pads, tree canopy minimums) would add significant costs and deter infill development. Staff confirmed draft three would simplify many standards, focusing on key elements like tree canopy thresholds for larger projects.
• Ms. Ebert questioned the proportionality of ADU sizes relative to the primary dwelling, worried about upzoning worship properties out of context, and suggested that five years of vacancy for the demolition exception could create blighting influences. She recommended that any redevelopment of worship sites beyond context should require an SUP or rezoning.
• Commissioner Greenfield echoed support for deferring to building code on occupancy, called for fairness across the city on dwelling unit allowances, and urged not losing sight of larger code refresh goals (modernization, reducing SUPs, legalizing non-conforming uses). She noted the RKG analysis shows limited production from the dwelling unit proposal and that most growth will occur on nodes and corridors.
• Commissioner Robertson asked about industrial land opportunities for job creation and how city-owned surplus land will be zoned. Staff confirmed industrial zones are preserved and that city-owned parcels will be zoned per future land use, with the city retaining leverage for affordability in negotiations.
• Chair asked about public engagement numbers: Richmond 300 had 8,500 attendees, 5,000 survey responses, 229 community meetings, and 2,000 map comments. Staff outlined plans for increased outreach on draft three, especially to underrepresented groups, and emphasized explaining technical details like how occupancy limits translate from building code square footage. The chair also questioned the jump in ADU size from 500 to 1,200 sq ft; staff explained it was based on housing partners’ feedback about family-sized units and proportionality to the principal dwelling.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken; the session was advisory for drafting the third iteration of the code.
• Staff committed to incorporating feedback into draft three, including:
  • Simplifying design standards and reducing cost burdens on smaller infill projects.
  • Exploring an off-ramp for deteriorated structures via appeals to BZA.
  • Adjusting ADU size limits to ensure subordination to the principal dwelling.
  • Continuing contextual zoning for worship properties, balancing state legislation for affordable housing by right.
  • Ensuring citywide consistency on dwelling unit allowances.
• The draft three is expected to be released in July 2026, with subsequent review by City Council and the Planning Commission for final adoption.