Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Unit Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond planners move to drop separate 'residential PUD' label, streamline PUD rules
Summary
The Planning Commission agreed Aug. 6 to remove a separate 'residential PUD' category and treat planned unit developments uniformly, using district-specific 'callouts' (for example, requiring commercial frontage on Bridge Street) to preserve local commercial space.
Chair Virginia opened the meeting Aug. 6 by proposing the commission remove references to a distinct “residential PUD” from Richmond’s zoning code and treat all planned unit developments (PUDs) as a single permit type with district-specific exceptions.
The change would mean a PUD defaults to the uses allowed in the underlying zoning district unless the commission adopts a written callout requiring otherwise. "There's just one thing that's a PUD," Virginia said, arguing that deleting the separate term would simplify the ordinance and align Richmond with how other towns write PUD rules. She proposed marking district-specific differences in a callout section rather than keeping three separate PUD definitions.
Commissioners discussed several district-specific examples. In the Jolina Court district, the commission has already proposed a callout requiring that 20% of building frontage facing Bridge Street remain commercial; members agreed that kind of localized restriction should remain. For the village downtown (VD) district, commissioners affirmed the existing approach that generally reserves first-floor space for commercial use and limits residential uses to upper floors.
Keith, the town's director of planning and zoning, cautioned that the commission also needs clearer amendment procedures for PUD approvals. He recommended defining "minor" and "major" amendments so routine changes (such as relocating a driveway by a small distance or minor landscaping adjustments) could be handled administratively while critical changes tied to permit conditions would return to the Development Review Board.
The commission also agreed to address an awkward provision that currently treats PUDs "as if" they were subdivisions. Virginia and staff said the code should instead describe the PUD review steps directly (preliminary and final or conditional review) and clarify when subdivision rules apply, noting PUDs can occur with or without a subdivision.
What's next: the commission asked staff to draft revised PUD language removing the separate "residential PUD" references, add clear major/minor amendment definitions, and identify district callouts (such as the 20% Bridge Street commercial requirement) for future meetings and outreach.
