Roost Cafe and Coffee shop trying to open on Oak St?

[JaxAvondale]

There is a business located in front of the proposed location. However, I can see both sides of the argument. With that said, I would rather see a viable restaurant in the area that can anchor the surrounding retail stores.

[JaxAvondale]

Also, there are a lot of apartments nearby. I would be a bit surprised if there was an abundance of renters that are vociferously opposed to a restaurant in the area. 

[mtraininjax]

Good news, you can find out the REAL story at the upcoming RAP meeting:

Join us on October 29th at 6pm for a community Town Hall. Location: Worsham Hall at the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd.

We will be discussing upcoming projects and events in the neighborhood including River Access, The John Gorrie Dog Park at Riverside Park, the Community Garden, and the JBill. This is a great time to meet members of the RAP board and get connected with your community.

[fieldafm]

So the owners of the roost are making a presentation there?

No.


In other (nearby) news, HPC staff has recommended that Steve Williams' proposed window treatments/door relocations to the old Petersons Five and Dime/new Hoptinger building in Five Points be modified. The proposed relocation of the doors will remove the old window display case (not needed for a restaurant space, and precedent has already been set when Hawkers was also allowed to remove similar storefront display spaces when they combined/rehabilated three storefronts a few years ago) and the proposal would also install windows that open to the street similar to existing storefront treatments at restaurants like Hawkers (just a few doors down), Mellow Mushroom and The Brick that already operate in the R/A Historic District (and have all been recognized for their outstanding adaptive reuse by the HPC, RAP and/or ULI). Never seen a city throw so many obstacles in front of developers related to windows in my 15 years of professional life. HPC will vote on the matter tomorrow.

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/historic/book/2015/the-book-october-28-2015.aspx  (pages 388-445)

[Tacachale]

So the owners of the roost are making a presentation there?

No.


In other (nearby) news, HPC staff has recommended that Steve Williams' proposed window treatments/door relocations to the old Petersons Five and Dime/new Hoptinger building in Five Points be modified. The proposed relocation of the doors will remove the old window display case (not needed for a restaurant space, and precedent has already been set when Hawkers was also allowed to remove similar storefront display spaces when they combined/rehabilated three storefronts a few years ago) and the proposal would also install windows that open to the street similar to existing storefront treatments at restaurants like Hawkers (just a few doors down), Mellow Mushroom and The Brick that already operate in the R/A Historic District (and have all been recognized for their outstanding adaptive reuse by the HPC, RAP and/or ULI). Never seen a city throw so many obstacles in front of developers related to windows in my 15 years of professional life. HPC will vote on the matter tomorrow.

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/historic/book/2015/the-book-october-28-2015.aspx  (pages 388-445)

Ouch. What is the reasoning?

[fieldafm]

There is a meeting today to pass the window treatments.

Sorry, been mixing up dates all morning. The 28th is today (not tomorrow), thanks for catching that.

Ouch. What is the reasoning?

The staff report and a rendering of staff's alternate recommendations are included in the link. It's a lengthy PDF, but scroll to page 389. Basically, they contend that removing the display windows (even though they were changed in 1954) would substantially alter the character of the original 1938 recessed angled entries with display windows.


Somehow I don't think the integrity of the historical use of the building is affected by removing what is essentially wasted space for the type of use being requested. There are several former Kress buildings that have similar façade enhancements being requested to better accommodate a restaurant use, that you can still clearly appreciate were former Kress stores. I'm all for good design and historical preservation... but some of these things get maddeningly insane (I once walked out of a meeting in angst when Delores Weaver was getting raked over the coals for window treatments on the John Gorrie rehab project... something she lost millions on).



BTW, the Kress Terrace in Greensboro (similar to the proposed use of the Peterson/Hoptinger bldg.)





Here's a similar proposal in Arizona:





Can you somehow not tell this was an old furniture building (built before even the 5 Pts bldg. in question) if the 2nd picture gets built and the display windows are removed? Does picture #2 look better than the current state depicted in picture #1 while still paying homage to the building's original architecture? 

[williamcolledge]

Hey All:
When I last spoke with the group trying to open the Roost last week they mentioned that there will be a community event with both the restaurant group and RAP on Thursday November 12th at 6pm. I'll try to figure out where this is taking place and let everyone know.

[Sentient]

I just talked to Carman Godwin, and apparently the group wants to open a restaurant at the space, with 150 seats and be open at night with a liquor license.

The group has the right to do this in the zoning by exception, but the fear is that there would be late night noise at a building almost completely surrounded by residential apartments.

I can kind of see the point.  The building was originally built as a dry cleaners and up until the opening of SNAP fitness has never been open at night in its history.

But that said, their original concept was for a breakfast and lunch diner, which the surrounding neighbors supported.

I can't verify that these are the unvarnished facts, considering the tall tales that were going around over Kickbacks and Mellow Mushroom, but that is the other side.

The location, I think, gives some weight to arguments against a late night live music venue.  Perhaps the owners of the Roost could weigh in?

My question would be what exactly is RAP's involvement and why?  Looking at the statement above in bold, if we are going to nit pick every development idea why have zoning or exceptions at all.  If the plan meets the zoning requirements then let them open.

If it's a zoning "by exception" situation, then it doesn't meet the current zoning requirements. They still need to get an exception. If an exception is needed, the surrounding community's support is critical in getting the exception granted.

This is where RAP and other impacted community stakeholder's involvement would come into play.

And this is exactly the problem with what RAP is doing...  they are kingmaker or dealbreaker merely because they are an "organization"...  RAP does not speak FOR the neighborhood... they are not elected representatives... they are a private lobbying group.

Let's do a hypothetical...  let's say there are actually just 12 people for Roost and just 12 people against Roost.  12 against speak with some RAP board members and RAP comes out "on record" advocating against Roost...  the 12 people that are for it are never heard from or dismissed as a small segment of the community... after all RAP has spoken on the issue and RAP represents Riverside and Avondale...

See how this works?  RAP chooses their battles and if you follow those battles it is quite curious how they go about it.  That is if you think these battles are following some uniform guidelines, as if they were an actual municipal department for example, with accountability, oversight and equal access...  but when you realize they are really just a private lobbying group, then it all makes sense.

LOL.  BTW - nearly all the shops around the neighborhood were some kind of retail operation for many years before ANY of them became restaurants like Biscotti's, Brick, Mojo, etc.  so the fact that this defunct laundry would also now be a restaurant is irrelevant.

[thelakelander]

You'll see I also said "other impacted community stakeholders". Anyone or group can take a position to either back or oppose a project. At this point, I wouldn't fault either side. A lot more information is needed for us on the outside, looking in, IMO.

[mtraininjax]

so the fact that this defunct laundry would also now be a restaurant is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with zoning, but I found out at the RAP Town Hall Meeting tonight that the site under the Deluxe Cleaners is deemed a SuperFund site.....

All RAP is looking to do is work with the owners and neighbors to reach a healthy settlement. Originally the Cafe/Coffee shop was only going to be 60 seats, then they came back and said they wanted 150 and outdoor "effects". Ultimately, the neighbors need to have some say-so as well, since they have to deal with the outdoor "effects", so that is the reason for the slow down in progress. The original zoning was approved, but with the new JBill legislation, the owners figured they could get a crack at easier expansion. All new restaurants, while they can get the opportunity to file for the extension, when JBill passes, will need to go through this sort of compromise.

I find it healthy and a good sign to get the neighbors involved, ultimately they will be the largest supporter of the shop.

[Sentient]

so the fact that this defunct laundry would also now be a restaurant is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with zoning, but I found out at the RAP Town Hall Meeting tonight that the site under the Deluxe Cleaners is deemed a SuperFund site.....

All RAP is looking to do is work with the owners and neighbors to reach a healthy settlement. Originally the Cafe/Coffee shop was only going to be 60 seats, then they came back and said they wanted 150 and outdoor "effects". Ultimately, the neighbors need to have some say-so as well, since they have to deal with the outdoor "effects", so that is the reason for the slow down in progress. The original zoning was approved, but with the new JBill legislation, the owners figured they could get a crack at easier expansion. All new restaurants, while they can get the opportunity to file for the extension, when JBill passes, will need to go through this sort of compromise.

I find it healthy and a good sign to get the neighbors involved, ultimately they will be the largest supporter of the shop.

There is already a public hearing process to mediate issues between pro and  against groups.  There is no need for RAP to interject and place the weight of their perceived authority on the scale - when and how they choose.  There is no equivalent counter RAP neighborhood group.  And stakeholders are not just owners and neighbors - it's the entire community - those that live here and those that come here and spend money.  RAP does not have my vote...  they are not elected.  They are a private lobbying group.

[cline]

so the fact that this defunct laundry would also now be a restaurant is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with zoning, but I found out at the RAP Town Hall Meeting tonight that the site under the Deluxe Cleaners is deemed a SuperFund site.....

All RAP is looking to do is work with the owners and neighbors to reach a healthy settlement. Originally the Cafe/Coffee shop was only going to be 60 seats, then they came back and said they wanted 150 and outdoor "effects". Ultimately, the neighbors need to have some say-so as well, since they have to deal with the outdoor "effects", so that is the reason for the slow down in progress. The original zoning was approved, but with the new JBill legislation, the owners figured they could get a crack at easier expansion. All new restaurants, while they can get the opportunity to file for the extension, when JBill passes, will need to go through this sort of compromise.

I find it healthy and a good sign to get the neighbors involved, ultimately they will be the largest supporter of the shop.

There is already a public hearing process to mediate issues between pro and  against groups.  There is no need for RAP to interject and place the weight of their perceived authority on the scale - when and how they choose.  There is no equivalent counter RAP neighborhood group.  And stakeholders are not just owners and neighbors - it's the entire community - those that live here and those that come here and spend money.  RAP does not have my vote...  they are not elected.  They are a private lobbying group.

So what's keeping you from starting an anti-RAP group to counter the interests of RAP? That's what We Love Avondale did when they didn't feel like RAP was busting Mellow Mushroom's balls enough. The public hearing process you mentioned could be a good launching point for your newly formed neighborhood group.

[Sentient]

so the fact that this defunct laundry would also now be a restaurant is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with zoning, but I found out at the RAP Town Hall Meeting tonight that the site under the Deluxe Cleaners is deemed a SuperFund site.....

All RAP is looking to do is work with the owners and neighbors to reach a healthy settlement. Originally the Cafe/Coffee shop was only going to be 60 seats, then they came back and said they wanted 150 and outdoor "effects". Ultimately, the neighbors need to have some say-so as well, since they have to deal with the outdoor "effects", so that is the reason for the slow down in progress. The original zoning was approved, but with the new JBill legislation, the owners figured they could get a crack at easier expansion. All new restaurants, while they can get the opportunity to file for the extension, when JBill passes, will need to go through this sort of compromise.

I find it healthy and a good sign to get the neighbors involved, ultimately they will be the largest supporter of the shop.

There is already a public hearing process to mediate issues between pro and  against groups.  There is no need for RAP to interject and place the weight of their perceived authority on the scale - when and how they choose.  There is no equivalent counter RAP neighborhood group.  And stakeholders are not just owners and neighbors - it's the entire community - those that live here and those that come here and spend money.  RAP does not have my vote...  they are not elected.  They are a private lobbying group.

So what's keeping you from starting an anti-RAP group to counter the interests of RAP? That's what We Love Avondale did when they didn't feel like RAP was busting Mellow Mushroom's balls enough. The public hearing process you mentioned could be a good launching point for your newly formed neighborhood group.

Yes that makes sense Cline. So because we have one rogue group unduly influencing development we need to start yet another to counter balance it.  Idiot.  How about just following the existing municipal hearing process and voiding RAP's meddlesomeness... wouldn't that be far easier?

[thelakelander]

^What you don't like is the municipal process we currently have in place.

[cline]

Yes that makes sense Cline. So because we have one rogue group unduly influencing development we need to start yet another to counter balance it.  Idiot.  How about just following the existing municipal hearing process and voiding RAP's meddlesomeness... wouldn't that be far easier?


[/quote]

That's where we are at in the process. What they want to do requires an exemption that will be decided by the City. RAP doesn't grant the exemption. Neither do you nor I. That said, we all have the ability to voice our concerns (for or against) the exemption if we wish.

And if you don't think that individuals, groups, developers, etc. are trying to influence the planning department (or other departments for that matter) all the time then I'm not the only idiot here. It was just a couple months ago that a couple residents wanted to close a river access point that would have set precedent and had implications for the entire neighborhood.