"Missing Middle" zoning change - Rory Diamond

[jaxoNOLE]

The infrastructure in beltway-adjacent Arlington is already overwhelmed, and the developments along Merrill and Tredinick are not even fully built out.

Added density here may make theoretical sense from a land use perspective, but I suggest the members of council who rammed an apartment complex through based on an admittedly faulty traffic study come take a drive through this part of town during daylight hours before suggesting we can support densifying the SFH neighborhoods in this area.

This isn't NIMBYism. If we can get transit or address the traffic issues, then I'm all for seeing this area densify around me.

[Tacachale]

Will have to read to see how the MM Overlay meshes with other overlays - like RAP, Greater Arlington, and so on.

I believe existing zoning overlays would not be impacted by this bill.

I believe I was mistaken.

As is, this appears to supercede zoning overlays....

Yeah, by the map included in the original bill, it would have conflicted with existing overlays. But the Planning Department map used in the amendments specifically excludes areas with overlays. Another reason the amendments are necessary.

[Jax_Developer]

I don't think anyone advocating for this bill wants to see more housing in flood plains or areas without city services. In fact, I'd argue this bill stems from the sentiment many developers have, which is to stay away from that entirely. Not sure if anyone is aware of the FDEP/USACOE dispute, but the whole idea of developing endangered/flooded area's is becoming less of a reality each year.

What is a problem, is the responses from the PD on this:

• Negating an investment of "considerable time and money" in updating the regulations.

Well actually, almost nothing was changed from the 2030 plan to the 2045 plan. There were some changed road classifications, we added in text for HDR & TOD's... but not much else besides changing some goals around. It is genuinely hard to argue that the changes between the two documents warrants "considerable time & money."

• Abandoning an opportunity to build resilience into future development.

Untrue, unless we just leave the bill as-is. Density allows for more to be done with less. It's not like I can magically circumnavigate storm water code now... in fact, might justify stormwater infrastructure to get more units.  Obviously needs to be controlled, but currently, there are zero options. There are acres of property around the I-295 belt that can & should support higher density than 20du/acre beyond what is legally allowed today.

• Exposing residents and property to increased climate hazards.

Fear-mongering - like proposing a simple amendment to prevent flood zones won't solve this issue? Makes no sense... no stormwater drainage is being changed by these bills at all. It's not like we have decided we are changing all the allowed lot coverage ratios either?? Aren't those ratios well thought out - or were those made keeping in mind a good % of lots will just sit empty?

• Increasing the city's financial burden from storms.

Complete LOL. This city has show they could care less about prepping for storms unless it involves an expensive park. We have one of the least equipped urban areas for storm surges/hurricane's. I mean, we get a 3ft storm surge coming in, and Baptist is practically cut off from San Marco. Still, this point is just the other two points regurgitated in different verbiage.

--

Need to get some meaningful amendments put together to address the obvious issues in the bills, but planning needs to stop acting like 30du/acre density in certain areas & actually allowing 2,3,4 unit housing to be built (not just putting it in the code to look pretty) is going to implode the city. The effects will be minor & it might be the only bill passed in the last 10 years that *tries* to stop the endless urban sprawl that will devastate our city's piggy bank in the future.

Don't worry, the quant San Jose neighborhood won't be destroyed. That's a completely emotional response (in the article). What is someone gonna do? Go buy a $400k+ property to tear down & build a quad? That makes absolutely no sense for the type of RE market that exists in Jax. We have at least a decade or two before that is even a conversation...

The bill as originally filed didn't take account of flood risks, so it absolutely would have encouraged further density in flood prone areas. It would have all negative impacts the Planning Department identified and undermined the work they've spent months on. That's why we filed amendments to replace the original map with the one Planning developed that incorporates flood zones, compound flood modeling and other long-term projections. The amendments take care of much of those problems, so they turn it into a decent bill.

Yes, my comments are with those changes in mind. I don't believe anyone in the development community would want to see higher density in flood zones & other prone areas. Those last three points from planning all really address one item that can be accounted (amended) for.

Either way, appreciate the fact that the mayor's office agrees that there needs to be "change" to the code - whatever that ends up being. The lack of any major changes for a while has created some holes in our code.

[mvp]

Does this supersede existing HOA covenants and restrictions?

[Tacachale]

Does this supersede existing HOA covenants and restrictions?

No, or future ones.