Public Comment Deadline: March 1, 2026
General info: https://rva.gov/planning-development-review/code-refresh
Submit detailed comments: https://richmond.konveio.com/code-refresh-draft-two

Why Capital Trees Is Engaging on the Zoning Code Refresh

Capital Trees exists to lead initiatives that use public landscapes and tree canopy to awaken, restore, and transform our city and the people who live in it. Because zoning shapes where trees can be planted, how long they can survive, and who benefits from shade and greenspace, it directly affects the long-term health, resilience, and livability of Richmond. While much of the Zoning Code Refresh is forward-looking, its decisions will shape neighborhoods for generations. As a trusted steward of public greenspaces and a collaborative civic partner, Capital Trees is offering focused, practical feedback to help ensure the new code supports thriving tree canopy, functional greenspace, and a healthier city over the long term.

1. Use the full canopy authority already allowed by Virginia law

Code location: Article 4, §4.5.1 – Tree Canopy Requirements

What to comment:
Amend §4.5.1 to require the maximum canopy percentages permitted under Va. Code §15.2-961.1 for residential development, including “missing middle” housing.

Why it matters:
Draft 2 generally sets canopy at 10–15% for many residential districts, including new higher-density districts like RD-C on 25-foot lots. These rules are prospective, but they will shape neighborhood performance for 50–100 years. State law already allows 20–30% canopy—not using it locks in future heat.

2. Prioritize native plants and block invasives from counting

Code locations:

• Article 4, §4.5.1 – Tree Canopy Requirements
• Article 4 – Planting Lists and Standards

What to comment:
Use authority under Va. Code §15.2-961.3 to:

• Prohibit species on the Virginia DCR Invasive Plant Species List (trees and other plants) from counting toward canopy or landscaping requirements.
• Establish a native-first approach, including a canopy bonus for native, climate-resilient species.

Why it matters:
Plants that harm ecosystems should not satisfy canopy rules. Native species live longer, provide more shade, and deliver real long-term canopy.

3. Make sure trees are built to survive, not “planted to fail”

Code locations:

• Article 4, §4.5.2 – Landscape Standards
• Article 4, §4.5.5 – Street Trees
• Cross-reference: Article 4, §4.2 – Dimensional Standards

What to comment:
Pair canopy requirements with survivability standards by:

• Requiring 5–8 ft minimum tree lawns / green zones for street trees.
• Requiring structural soil, suspended pavement, Silva Cells, or equivalent where widths cannot be met.

Why it matters:
Recent developments (e.g., Westlake, Belle Heights) show 3–4 ft tree lawns, reduced setbacks, and insufficient soil, almost guaranteeing canopy failure. You can’t get a canopy if there’s nowhere to plant a tree.

4. Incentivize above-minimum canopy on commercial & industrial sites

Code locations:

• Article 4, §4.5.1 – Tree Canopy (All Other Districts)
• Article 3 – Incentive Zoning

What to comment:
Create a “Canopy Plus” incentive program for projects that exceed the 10% non-residential canopy cap imposed by state law.

Allowable incentives:

• Modest  height bonuses
• Parking flexibility
• Expedited review

Why it matters:
The draft allows canopy but doesn’t encourage it. Commercial and industrial sites are often the hottest parcels, and incentives are the only legal tool to get meaningful canopy there.

5. Strongly protect existing mature trees

Code location: Article 4, §4.5.1 – Tree Canopy (Existing Trees)

What to comment:
Replace small percentage reductions (e.g., 20% ? 18%) with a Canopy Credit system.

Suggested standard:

• One preserved large, healthy tree = 2–3× the canopy credit of a new sapling.
• Tier credits for front-yard trees and rear-yard/background canopy.

Why it matters:
Mature trees cool immediately. Saplings take decades. Current incentives undervalue preservation.

6. Apply stronger canopy standards where heat is worst

Code locations:

• Article 3 – Overlay Districts
• Article 4, §4.5.1 – Tree Canopy

What to comment:
Establish a Heat Vulnerability Overlay tied to the City’s Urban Heat Vulnerability Map.

Overlay standards:

• +5–10% canopy above base district requirements
• At least 75% large-scale shade trees, not ornamentals

Why it matters:
The City already has the data. Zoning should use it to guide canopy investment.

7. Align zoning with DPW and the Better Streets Manual

Code locations:

• Article 4, §4.5 – Landscaping and Trees
• Article 4, §4.3 – Streetscape and Parking

What to comment:
Require explicit coordination between Planning & Development Review (PDR) and DPW so zoning, subdivision standards, and street manuals reinforce the same minimums.

Why it matters:
Some street types still reference 2-ft green zones, which contradict canopy goals and known tree health requirements—especially on “Great Street” corridors like Commerce Road and Route 1.

8. Allow setback planting when right-of-way is constrained

Code locations:

• Article 4, §4.2 – Setbacks
• Article 4, §4.5.1 – Tree Canopy Credit

What to comment:
Allow canopy credit for trees planted on private property within 10 ft of the sidewalk where utilities prevent street trees.

Why it matters:
This ensures dense streets still receive shade when the public right-of-way can’t support trees.

9. Require landscape or tree plans for larger projects

Code locations:

• Article 1 – Administration / Site Plan Review
• Article 4, §4.5 – Landscaping and Trees

What to comment:
Require landscape or tree plans, sealed by licensed professionals, for projects above a defined size or intensity threshold.

Why it matters:
Peer jurisdictions like Henrico and Chesterfield already require this. Richmond should match regional standards so trees aren’t an afterthought.