Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident supports special-use permit for redevelopment at 5728 Patterson Avenue
Summary
A First District resident spoke in favor of a special-use permit (ordinance 2024-3-29) to redevelop a 75-year-old retail property at 5728 Patterson Avenue into street-level retail and three stories of office, urging council to prioritize walkable development over parking concerns.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
John Gregory, a First District resident, addressed the Richmond City Council during public comment in support of ordinance 2024-3-29, a special-use permit for 5728 Patterson Avenue.
Gregory said he has no connection to the project other than being a longtime First District resident and urged council to approve redevelopment of a "tired 75 year old retail brick box" into ground-floor retail space, including the existing pastry shop, with three stories of Class A office above. He said letters of opposition from neighbors raised parking concerns about an extra floor of office, and he described those objections as "the same old weaponization of vague parking and traffic concerns to stop new walkable development." Gregory told council that residents who choose city living "want to bike to work and walk to their favorite restaurant" and urged the newly formed council to "set a precedent of prioritizing businesses and people over cars." He asked members to support the special-use permit.
There were no speakers recorded in opposition during the public hearing portion related to this item at the time of the meeting. Gregory framed his remarks as supportive testimony and referenced neighborhood letters of opposition; he did not provide technical traffic or parking studies during his public comment.
The special-use permit ordinance number he referenced was stated in the public comment as "ordinance 20 24 3 29." The meeting record does not show a final vote on that ordinance during this session; Gregory's statement was part of the public comment record for council consideration at subsequent hearings or votes.
