Understanding Code Refresh

Hello Sarah and Marianne,

Thank you for listening to concerns from constituents including our quickly growing Stratford Hills Civic Association members. In Revision 3, we do see signs that you’ve been listening and working hard to find solutions that support sustainable growth while addressing concerns of existing residents.

Now that the Revision 3 is out, we wanted to confirm a time for SHCA members to meet directly with you both to make sure that we’re clear on the implications of this latest revision.

We were so pleased to see the big change eliminating the potential for 3 units on each lot (eg, duplex + ADU or “tri-plex”).

We also appreciated the nod to our environmental concerns via the 30% vegetation requirement for RD-A lots.

We look forward to the smaller group conversation specific to Stratford Hills / Oxford area as previously discussed. We would like to meet with you all in advance of the September 22nd Southside Town Hall so that we can focus our questions specifically to our area.

We’re still gathering feedback from our member base (which has now grown to over 200 households). But we’re happy to share with you the current list of clarifying questions that reflect potential concerns based on our reading of Revision 3:

• Draft 3’s definition of "household" includes a sentence stating that the term "household" does include group living or special needs housing, which appears difficult to reconcile with the separate definition of Group Living as occupancy exceeding the household maximum. PDR should clarify the intended reading.
• For a single R-2 lot that becomes a primary residence + a large ADU under a RD-A zoning, would that mean that there could be up to 10 unrelated adults on that property with 5 in the primary residence and 5 in the ADU? This is our reading of Draft 3. We are specifically concerned that this new language expansion allows by-right group living up to five adult occupants per each structure, plus further expansion under CUP for Group Living scenarios.
• For a General Group Living CUP in RD-A, what provision or CUP practice establishes the maximum number of residents/bedrooms, automobile parking expectations, and any spacing/separation from another Group Living use? How is neighborhood feedback about Group Living considered in the CUP process? What are the processes for addressing ongoing issues with permitted Group Living units? Can a Group Living facility lose its permit based on neighborhood concerns once permits have been allowed?
• For RD-A, “2 units per building” language on p 2-10 seems to address the option for an internal or attached ADU. But, does this language create a loophole for by-right duplexing? Is there any tweak that could further limit that concern?
• For ADU’s in RD-A, please explain the contextual height restrictions. In reading pages 2-10 and 3-33 we seem to read inconsistent language and visual representations. Is ADU’s max height 35’ or 20’ ? Similarly, if an ADU is now max 1200 square foot first floor footprint, does that mean it could be up to 3600 in total square footage based on the 35’ height rules? Or is it a max square footage of 1200 total?
• Draft 3 seems to narrow the ability to create L-shaped lots. Under Draft 3, could a lot with a home set far back create an L shaped sub-lot for the existing home (existing structures seem to be allowed for L-shaped lots) and subsequently develop the newly created lot facing the street as a loop-hole to this new stricter guidance? For irregular or easement-served new lots, how will PDR apply the 90-ft primary-street lot-width requirement together with the rule allowing a new building to front a recorded permanent access easement? This matters for flag/L-shaped conventional subdivisions.
• Regarding building lot coverage for RD-A, what does “30% all other uses” apply to? And, for a single home built under R-2 with lot coverage of 25% would it now be considered non-compliant under Draft 3?

While the above clarifying questions are incredibly important as we evaluate the implications of Revision 3, we continuously have real concerns about the lack of comprehensive environmental and infrastructure impact studies. We would assume these would have been done for the entire City. But especially for Stratford Hills / Oxford - we feel like it would be highly irresponsible to pass this without both infrastructure impact and environmental impact studies.

Our neighborhoods were developed primarily around the mid-1960s, concurrent to the major land gifts that established the James River Park System as part of an effort to preserve the shoreline and falls for public recreation. JRPS and the surrounding forested neighborhoods not only provide huge pollution and heat mitigation to the City of Richmond, key spots within this watershed like Pony Pasture and Huguenot Flatwater are gems that portray one of the most charming features of Richmond life along the James. This area is frequently featured in marketing to visitors and prospective residents, as well as recently featured in a music video from Grammy-award winning Lucy Dacus. We think there is a lot of economic and environmental value to the City that would be put at risk if the impacts for this unique neighborhood and watershed are not properly studied and considered.

Given we were initially developed as a rural suburban area with narrow winding streets that accommodated large lots developed among an established forest, steep hills, winding creeks, springs and historic hunting lodges - there are really unique impacts and considerations that should be reviewed closely.

Infrastructure impact specific:

• Our existing neighborhood roads are very narrow, including some with steep drop offs instead of sidewalks. We see emergency vehicles coming to homes in our neighborhood and cutting through our neighborhood regularly. We have families and children that walk our narrow streets daily. We need to understand the expected road and parking requirements to safely add density in this area which was not designed with density in mind.
• Our water mains and sewage lines have frequent breaks, and aren’t in a position to scale with additional development. It would be helpful to understand how these infrastructure improvements are being paid for and if they are already in the works or planned.
• We’ve recently seen an increase in school-aged children moving into the neighborhood (a shift which we love to see). It would be helpful to understand the impacts on schools and the readiness of our nearby schools, magnet schools and bus systems to accommodate an even greater increase in number of children.

Environmental impact specific:

• As we are uniquely positioned in the James River / Chesapeake Bay watershed, we are particularly interested in understanding the environmental impacts of this proposal - including tree canopy, watershed and flooding, as well as wildlife habitat impacts. Some locations with particularly hilly terrain already experience significant erosion issues and water run-off. The entire neighborhood character centers on “living in the woods” and “among the birds and wildlife” that thrive in this river adjacent ecosystem. We see ourselves as stewards of the established forest ecosystem that provides so much value to the City.
• In the past decade, we have seen homes built that had always been thought to be “not buildable under Chesapeake Bay Act”. We are concerned that the City’s approvals of newer construction in areas near creeks and high-erosion risk areas may already be non-compliant. We’d like to better understand the City’s views in regards to these sensitive areas in general, and more specifically what the process will be for construction permitting to ensure that future building is compliant with the intent of the CBA which not only protects the food producing economic engine of the Chesapeake Bay, but also the James River that runs through the heart of Richmond.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to making the City of Richmond a thriving community. And thank you for your ongoing commitment to getting this rezoning right.

Sincerely

Dear Marianne and Timmy:

Thank you both for coming out to share information about the Code Refresh process and what the implications would be for R2 neighborhoods including the greater Stratford Hills area (which was established before Chippenham Parkway existed and extended from the river to Forest Hill Ave). You were very generous with your time and we're grateful for the opportunity to share some early feedback with you as an input to the Round 3 work. Additionally, we're soliciting some feedback via our newly formed civic association (Stratford Hills Civic Association) and will continue to share feedback from the broader community as we have more of it. Topline: We are supportive of densification ideas around main corridors and nodes and would love more dense, walkable areas along Forest Hill Ave. However, based on early feedback from the community we are AGAINST code changes that promote adding significant infill square footage within this neighborhood.

However, based on early feedback from the community we are AGAINST code changes that promote adding significant infill square footage within this neighborhood.

Protect neighborhoods

We had mistakenly thought the recent ADU change was the end of the story for changes to R2 zoning. We have heard from many in our community who are against any further changes to zoning protections of R2 across any Richmond neighborhoods. Their concerns are not just for our neighborhood, but for negative impacts of the plans overall. The key themes that keep coming up include:

• Changing code to allow new infill opportunities in mature neighborhoods is not aligned with Richmond 300s focus on walkable corridors and growth nodes
• Impact to the character of the neighborhood community/ies
• Risk of losing neighborhood of home-ownership to a largely investor owned rental model
• Concerns that infrastructure is already insufficient to support the City's residents (schools, water, waste water, electrical, streets, services)
• Concerns that this plan doesn't bring in the tax dollars and funding sources to support fixing the base-level problems, much less the proposed population growth
• Concerns that these changes will not produce more affordable housing, and that taxes will rise further to pay for the infrastructure demands
• Concerns that property values and tax bases would suffer as people seeking single family neighborhoods will leave for the counties

Suggestions

Focus on the walkable corridors and nodes and do not break established single family neighborhoods. For any ADUs including existing policies, strong support for the idea that the plan should include a provision that owners of lots holding more than one dwelling unit reside in one unit to help maintain a neighborhood's character.

Consider Environmental Impacts

While there are a few cynics in any neighborhood, the vast majority of our neighbors we've spoken to are truly shocked and heartbroken that the changes were proposed for Stratford Hills and surrounding neighborhoods. Our neighborhood was built on relatively large plots of heavily wooded land along the James River and surrounding watershed -- nestled among perennial creeks and hundreds-of-years-old trees, and offering tremendous value to the City in terms of ecosystem services, environmental benefits and prized natural recreation areas such as Pony Pasture and Huguenot Flatwater. The people in our community are as far from cookie cutter as are the varied size and topography of our lots - but the one thing we have in common is that we purposefully moved into and steward this livable forest among the extensive wildlife, birdlife and incredible canopy of trees.

Themes of concerns:

• This proposal does not match with the Richmond 300 initiative's emphasis on sustainability
• This proposal has not been designed with an environmental expert at the table or with environmental impact studies taken into consideration.
• This will dramatically undermine the City's initiatives to protect and grow total tree canopy since our neighborhood has the densest canopy in the City today
• Removing trees to add additional square footage of housing will have negative impacts on heat, air quality and related lung health, increasing the felt impact from pollution generated by nearby major thoroughfares like Chippenham Parkway and Powhite Parkway.
• Additionally, this increases CO2 and climate change impacts including adding to intensification of weather events
• Especially in our hilly terrain, removing trees and grading land to make it suitable for building will have tremendously negative impacts on water run-off and will create new erosion challenges
• Runoff into the James River watershed and destruction of the beautiful forests will negatively impact landmark Richmond Parks attractions like Pony Pasture and Huguenot Flatwater as well as others downriver, all of which are often featured by the City and local publications when promoting Richmond's vibe
• Expected run-off is most likely in direct conflict with the Chesapeake Bay Act and its goals of rebuilding and protecting the bay ecosystem
• Trees in our forested area are interdependent; if one neighbor takes down their trees and adds impervious surfaces it often damages the trees on adjacent properties. So even moderate infill is a risk to tree canopy and neighbors property.
• The wooded neighborhood is home to many wild animals including mating pairs of foxes and deer who have their fawns in our backyards each year. The impacts of habitat loss will be significant - which in itself would change the character of this unique community.
• Our tree canopy along the James River makes our neighborhood one of the top birdwatching sites in the region. The diversity and abundance of bird species is phenomenal including regular sightings of red shouldered hawks, barred owls, pileated woodpeckers and literally hundreds of other species we routinely see and hear chirping in the woods. Without the forest, Richmond will be less of a draw for birds and birdwatchers.
• We would be tearing down the very ecosystems, green spaces and natural beauty that is used frequently to advertise the attractiveness of Richmond as a destination or home.

Suggestions

Given all of the above, the drafters of the plan could benefit from a more serious environmental voice at the table. An environment specialist with city zoning expertise who can bring key issues for discussion would be an important core member of the team. We would expect environmental impact studies to evaluate the types of negative impacts including those outlined above before something as significant as R2 rezoning is codified. In the meantime, we would welcome a better understanding of the tree canopy provisions and especially how currently heavy wooded areas would have protection from being leveled to accommodate building.

We are getting the Stratford Hills community involved and looking forward to seeing your update to the broader community on the pending third revision - hopefully incorporating the above suggestions. Thanks again for your time and listening. We appreciate and look forward to further engagement on the subject.