Riverside's Toxic New Zoning Overlay Proposal

[RiversideRambler]

I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?

[thelakelander]

I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?

There's not much change. The largest I can see is the removal of two properties at Park & Ingleside from commercial to residential character, the conversion of Five Points Village shopping center from residential to commercial and the conversion of a block off Oak from residential to office.

correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part.  key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development.

I can see this being a big issue. There are quite a few commercial buildings in the residential character area that one could probably make a decent article for them being included in different character . For example, on the SW corner of Park & Dancy, the Avondale Superette and Avondale Best Dry Cleaner building falls in the Residential Character zone, despite being located at the same signalized intersection as South Kitchen and other retail storefronts.

Also, the old Pizza Palace (now 7-Eleven) at Margaret and Post is also located in a Residential Character area. Actually, most of the buildings lining Margaret, at least up to Dellwood, are commercial in nature, probably dating back to the days when a streetcar line ran through that area.

[Pastor Eric Wester]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/echo-boomers-flock-to-the-district-arlington/2013/06/21/4c32bf84-d763-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

I read these posts almost dail but rarely post. I am more of an observer or guest as my wife and I live out-of-town. We are seriously shopping for a condo to enable us to relocate to Jacksonville within two years. Of recent issues, including the pension debates leading up to the August vote, , it is the theme in this thread that is giving me pause. We really like our current neighborhood featured in the link above. The high cost of living and winter snows here nudge us south. In Arlington, Virginia, the young adult surge and plenty of baby boomers have combined with many other factors to make this area thrive. I really hope some direction toward developing a broad approach to future growth emerges in Riverside and surrounding neighborhoods.

Also, thanks for all who contribute to this forum. I've learned a lot and am grateful for the perspectives offered.

[Know Growth]

"Walk-Ability"   

What does this have to do with walkability? If the place is so inherently "walkable" why the ever increasing influx of vehicles,congestion?
Why the uproar over connecting commercial  to scarce parking ?

[Kay]

I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?

There's not much change. The largest I can see is the removal of two properties at Park & Ingleside from commercial to residential character, the conversion of Five Points Village shopping center from residential to commercial and the conversion of a block off Oak from residential to office.

correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part.  key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development.

I can see this being a big issue. There are quite a few commercial buildings in the residential character area that one could probably make a decent article for them being included in different character . For example, on the SW corner of Park & Dancy, the Avondale Superette and Avondale Best Dry Cleaner building falls in the Residential Character zone, despite being located at the same signalized intersection as South Kitchen and other retail storefronts.

Also, the old Pizza Palace (now 7-Eleven) at Margaret and Post is also located in a Residential Character area. Actually, most of the buildings lining Margaret, at least up to Dellwood, are commercial in nature, probably dating back to the days when a streetcar line ran through that area.

Ennis:  Here is the difference with the Superette/Dry Cleaner--it is right next to residential.  The block between Dancy and Ingleside is not.  None of the commercial structures along Margaret are historic in the residential character area so your statement about the street car line is not accurate.  One is built in the back yard of a residential structure and the others removed a residential structure for a 60s building.  The area cannot accommodate large commercial businesses.  What this legislation is saying is that a restaurant must be small in scale in residential character areas.  The 7-11 was at one time a small-scale restaurant before being a 7-11.  It can be a small scale restaurant again.  The buildings on the right side of Margaret are in the Urban Transition Area. 

Please remember that within Residential Character areas, the zoning code did not get relaxed.  It remains the same as it was before the Overlay.  But the Overlay relaxed the code in Office, Commercial and UTA with UTA being the most relaxed.

[Kay]

In addition to the Deluxe Cleaners buildings on Oak St., there are only 9 historic commercial structures that exist in the entire Overlay area within Residential Character Areas.  Three of those are mixed-use with apartments above and retail below.  All of the buildings are in current use except one. 

correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part.  key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development.  Except all the silly little business the PROUD types think are viable in historic structures requiring huge upfront investment. 

restaurants/bars are really the only category of business that can justify the investment needed to move into most of the old building stock

the simple truth is that retail is dead in historic areas without something to draw people in.  a restaurant does that.  take roost- that whole area will be little changed 5 years from now with no roost and this new overlay. 

put roost there and the other buildings/shops will fill in

its a pipe dream that a network of yarn shops or the like scattered around can/will sustain themselves without the influx of people getting out to eat and drink.  sadly jim love and his ilk would prefer an empty, run down building to anything that causes even the slightest aural disruption to their delicate ears.  it's hard to go to bed at 8:00 when those dang kids are roaming around!

[JFman00]

RAP meeting on the issue scheduled for 2 Nov from 6-8: https://www.facebook.com/events/573806319487807/

[Know Growth]

Henceforth ( skip Avondale,'henceforth' sounds like Ortega term  any reference to " walk able neighborhood" to be stricken and replaced with "Profitable neighborhood"

[TmaxS]

I am so confused.  I did a google search on this amendment that Jim Love proposed (AMENDMENT 2016-580) and the information on the COJ website (city council) is so perplexing especially considering that this pasted document indicates public hearings have already occurred...

2016-580
ORD-MC Amend Chapt 656 (Zoning Code), Part 1 (Gen Provisions), Subpart C (Procedures for Rezoning & Amends to the Zoning Code) & Part 3 (Schedule of Dist Regs), Subpart O (Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay), Ord Code, to add New Criterion & Require Council to Evaluate Specific Criteria before apv a Land Use or Zoning Appl in the Riverside/Avondale Overlay, Provide Intent of Designating the Character Areas, Amend Applicability of Overlay to PUD's, Specify Requiremts for Rezoning of Propty in All Character Areas, Limit Permissible Uses by Exception for CRO Zoning Dist in the Historic Residential Character Area, Amend Character Area Designations in Table 1.0, Amend Parking Requiremts within the Commercial Character Area, Provide Requiremts for Conversions to Non-Residential Uses & Limit Deviations & Waivers in the Historic Residential Character Area, Amend Parking Requiremts within the Historic Residential Character Area, & Provide Standards for Restaurants in the Residential Character Area; Replacing Existing Character Area Map. (Fetner) (Introduced by CM Love)
LUZ PH Pursuant to Sec 656.123, Ord Code - 10/4/16
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166.041(3)(c)(2), F.S. & CR 3.601 -  9/27/16 & 10/11/16

1. 8/23/2016 CO  Introduced: LUZ

   9/7/2016 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer

2. 9/13/2016 CO Read 2nd & Rereferred; LUZ

    9/27/2016 CO PH Addnl 10/11/16

[dietcoke]

Can someone come up with a template for residents / homeowners in the boundary, addressing point by point what is good / bad with this zoning proposal? I'm sure people know lawyers or people who are good with writing those type of artifacts.  This should be shared with residents and those residents send to all relevant parties in thread here:  http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,27941.msg455261.html#msg455261
Preferably snail mail (or hand delivered) + email by those living in the district.

As Jim Love's commercial business (State Farm) is in the King street district, I surmise the restaurant pieces are influenced by homeowners stopping into his office and voicing their concerns.  He needs to realize that people pay little attention to local city politics (which is why he seems to win every term although there always many people unhappy with him) but with a measure like this, there will be a reason to mobilize and unseat him in the next election. Voter apathy leads to a small set of voters holding disproportionate influence in matters like this.

Points that seem obviously beneficial are expanding the RAP designation out to FCCJ on Roosevelt.  Currently the zoning ends with an arbitrary street around Azalea and snakes around Little Fishweir. 

Points that are detrimental are limiting restaurant times to 8:00pm -- 1. effectively halt economic investment in the area 2. detrimental to  exisiting business viability 3. detrimental to existing homeowner value 4. detrimental to existing resident quality of life by removing the character and vibrancy of the neighborhood (there are many dead zones in jacksonville to live e.g. nocatee, mandarin, middleburg, kernan rd, etc) 5. detrimental to attracting younger crowd from other cities, who are willing to invest in improving the culture, infrastructure and therefore material economic value of a historic district  6. <etc>

[spuwho]

Media scrutiny is growing, including links to MJ.

http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-riverside-zoning-plan-causes-social-media-stir

[thelakelander]

I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?

There's not much change. The largest I can see is the removal of two properties at Park & Ingleside from commercial to residential character, the conversion of Five Points Village shopping center from residential to commercial and the conversion of a block off Oak from residential to office.

correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part.  key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development.

I can see this being a big issue. There are quite a few commercial buildings in the residential character area that one could probably make a decent article for them being included in different character . For example, on the SW corner of Park & Dancy, the Avondale Superette and Avondale Best Dry Cleaner building falls in the Residential Character zone, despite being located at the same signalized intersection as South Kitchen and other retail storefronts.

Also, the old Pizza Palace (now 7-Eleven) at Margaret and Post is also located in a Residential Character area. Actually, most of the buildings lining Margaret, at least up to Dellwood, are commercial in nature, probably dating back to the days when a streetcar line ran through that area.

Ennis:  Here is the difference with the Superette/Dry Cleaner--it is right next to residential.  The block between Dancy and Ingleside is not.  None of the commercial structures along Margaret are historic in the residential character area so your statement about the street car line is not accurate.  One is built in the back yard of a residential structure and the others removed a residential structure for a 60s building.  The area cannot accommodate large commercial businesses.  What this legislation is saying is that a restaurant must be small in scale in residential character areas.  The 7-11 was at one time a small-scale restaurant before being a 7-11.  It can be a small scale restaurant again.  The buildings on the right side of Margaret are in the Urban Transition Area. 

Please remember that within Residential Character areas, the zoning code did not get relaxed.  It remains the same as it was before the Overlay.  But the Overlay relaxed the code in Office, Commercial and UTA with UTA being the most relaxed.

At the time I made this statement, I was thinking about 742 Dellwood. It was converted into full residential during the mid-2000s, but was built as a mixed use building in 1910. It's certainly an example of historic commercial built along an operational streetcar line at the time. You can see the storefront and streetcar line on Margaret Street in this 1929 photo:



Nevertheless, yes many of the other commercial buildings along that stretch date back to the 50s and 60s. For example, 824 Margaret (built in 1955) has been around for 61 years. That's a long time.

[Kay]

There's a house in the photo where 824 Margaret exits today.  I personally think the historic home remaining would have been better than the building there today. 

From what I've heard recently, the City rezoned Margaret and Stockton with the vision of the first two homes being demolished and commercial fronting Stockton put in its place.  I don't think what the City did enhanced this part of the neighborhood.  And now we're a historic district and those structures are not coming down.

[thelakelander]

742 Dellwood also replaced a frame house in Riverside's early years. At one time, the Northbank was mostly residential and full of structures just as impressive as what people flock to Savannah and Charleston to see. As the city grew and densified, other uses came to support the population base. Unfortunately, we can't recreate the past in in some cases, mine being a minority in particular, that's probably not a bad thing. All we can do is improve on what we have to work with in our present state.

[hank]

Here is an overlay of the existing versus proposed with the changing parcels highlighted.  Its not much... but that is not the point.



What I see is that this map is misleading. That huge swath of yellow in the middle is hardly one single character.  It is everything from intimate alleyways to wide church-front gathering places and open stretches of parkland.  If you want to consider that character is a function in what use is appropriate for a given parcel, at least do it properly.  Don;t lump our whole neighborhood into a couple of broadly defined buckets that really don't get at the issue of whether a restaurant can coexist with a residence.  Certainly its working at Pine Grove Deli.  Let's ask why that is OK and use the answers to create thoughtful limitations that address real conditions.

To add to Steven's point, its not about when a structure was built or what kind of roof it has - that is a distraction.