Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission continues Highland Park special‑use hearing after neighbors object to density; owner agrees to meet with community
Summary
The Planning Commission unanimously continued consideration of a special‑use permit for 3122 Second Avenue to June 3 after several neighbors urged the commission to delay action until the developer meets the community and addresses concerns about density, parking and safety.
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue consideration of the ordinance authorizing a special‑use permit for 3122 Second Avenue so the applicant can meet with area residents and address neighborhood concerns.
Staff said the property in North Highland Park is a roughly 14,700‑square‑foot parcel recommended for neighborhood‑mixed uses in the Richmond 300 master plan and described a redevelopment proposal to create three lots fronting Second Avenue (one retaining the existing single‑family home) and two lots fronting Burns Street. The proposal would authorize up to three single‑family detached dwellings and two single‑family attached dwellings. Staff reported one emailed objection and recommended approval with conditions, including prohibiting vinyl siding and requiring elevations and site improvements generally as shown.
Neighbors and nearby residents voiced strong opposition at the public hearing, raising concerns about increased density, parking strain, public safety (including a recent shooting near the lot), sewer/water/trash capacity, and loss of neighborhood character. Several speakers said the block already hosts transitional housing and nearby multifamily projects; they asked whether additional units were appropriate so close together. Multiple residents said the developer had not reached out to neighbors. The owner said he bought the property about late 2022 or early 2023, that it had been abandoned for roughly 18 years, and that he would maintain the properties — but he declined to remove the two Burns Street lots from the proposal.
Commissioners pressed the applicant to meet neighbors. After a back‑and‑forth in which the applicant first declined to change the plan but then agreed to meet the community, the applicant accepted a 4‑week continuance; the commission voted to continue the item to the June 3 Planning Commission meeting.
Why it matters: The case ties into wider neighborhood concerns about rapid infill, displacement and whether the city’s land‑use policy balances housing supply with infrastructure and safety. Commissioners signaled willingness to deny the SUP if the applicant returns without meaningful outreach and adjustments.
Action: Motion to continue to June 3 passed unanimously (roll call: Poole, Greenfield, Joyhaug, Knight, Pinnock, Robertson, Roe, White, McKenzie all “Aye”).
