Appeal of Avondale Bungalow Demolition Denial @ LUZ tonight

[grimss]

Grimss - Do you think that MetroJax would want to post the presentation that RAP gave at the meeting last night?I thought it was very professionally done and laid out the issues very clearly.

I think it was well done, too.  I know the speakers put a ton of work into it.  I think the actual presentation submitted to the committee was around 30 pages, which I'm sure is way too big for MetroJAX.  However, I could check with the speakers about posting the gist of RAP's argument, if there's interest here.

[CS Foltz]

grimss............I would be interested in seeing just what was presented!

[fsu813]

me too.

[mtraininjax]

The meter has been pulled from the property and obviously will be empty for a long time.
Is this what our neighborhood needs, more poorly maintained homes?

RAP has its place, but far too often, it steps on the throats of homeowners, along with the City, I can't go into a lot of details because many in the city know I am very vocal and have had my share of run-ins with RAP and the City over COAs, and what is covered for a home in Riverside Avondale and what is covered for NEW CONSTRUCTION in Riverside Avondale. Windows are a mess, and not worth getting into here.

I agree with thirdeye though, should we just have more empty homes in our areas as we see more and more foreclosures? Or will RAP and the City come in and buy these "contributing" structures? Can they afford to help the homeowner who is being foreclosed on? Studies show that empty homes contribute more to crime and RAP covers a very dense population. I'd rather see a grassly lot than an empty building that becomes a haven for loitering and other issues. Riverside and Avondale have changed a lot, since RAP was created. While we don't have nuclear reactors in our neighborhoods, we would do well to consider a loosening of the reigns to allow for homeowner rights to have more say-so in the neighborhood.

[JeffreyS]

This thread is about a home that's main problems stem from the owner starting it's demo without permits. You can't really demo a house anywhere without permits can you? Even if it was an honest mistake you can't let self inflected damage be part of the justification for clearing out historic homes to make way for McMansions.

[thirdeye]

This thread is about a home that's main problems stem from the owner starting it's demo without permits. You can't really demo a house anywhere without permits can you? Even if it was an honest mistake you can't let self inflected damage be part of the justification for clearing out historic homes to make way for McMansions.

Can you build a McMansion in the RAP district?

[vicupstate]

I'd rather see a grassly lot than an empty building that becomes a haven for loitering and other issues. Riverside and Avondale have changed a lot, since RAP was created. While we don't have nuclear reactors in our neighborhoods, we would do well to consider a loosening of the reigns to allow for homeowner rights to have more say-so in the neighborhood.

You can't take this attitude.  If you did, EVERYTHING in Springfield would have been demolished in the '80's and '90's.  There were vacant houses and loitering everywhere.  Same for LaVilla, and that is exactly what happened, everything was razed.  Are you happy with THAT result?? Brooklyn -- ditto.

If vacant lots brought vibrancy and recovery, DT Jax would be the hottest spot in town.


There is a fine line between property rights and community rights, and it may get out of kilter at some points, but you can't just say, because something looks bad, it can be demolished. 

[lowlyplanner]

One of the points that RAP raised in their presentation was that property values increased more in Riverside and Springfield since the Historic Districts were put in place than the county as a whole, and also more than comparable neighborhoods like San Marco.  Also, Riverside has seen less decline in property values during the "Great Recession" and its decline started later than other areas. 

I think that the historic district is the only thing that makes Riverside and Avondale viable.  Both areas have a mix of single family homes and small multi-family buildings.  If houses can be torn down at will, then what would stop owners from tearing down houses and building cheap apartment buildings?  And a lot of this happened during the 60s and 70s.

The same goes for the mixture of commercial and residential.  There are occasional attempts to expand the shops of Avondale, or the Park and King area, but they usually get stopped because there are houses next door to the commercial area that can't be torn down.

[thirdeye]

One of the points that RAP raised in their presentation was that property values increased more in Riverside and Springfield since the Historic Districts were put in place than the county as a whole, and also more than comparable neighborhoods like San Marco.  Also, Riverside has seen less decline in property values during the "Great Recession" and its decline started later than other areas. 

I think that the historic district is the only thing that makes Riverside and Avondale viable.  Both areas have a mix of single family homes and small multi-family buildings.  If houses can be torn down at will, then what would stop owners from tearing down houses and building cheap apartment buildings?  And a lot of this happened during the 60s and 70s.

The same goes for the mixture of commercial and residential.  There are occasional attempts to expand the shops of Avondale, or the Park and King area, but they usually get stopped because there are houses next door to the commercial area that can't be torn down.

If this home,that has been partially demo'ed already, is destroyed and a new home gets built at some point,  what rules and codes does the homeowner have to abide by?

[grimss]

The owner (who, remember, is claiming he doesn't want to build anything--he just wants to leave the lot vacant for his grandkids) would have to submit a COA application with the Planning Dept and have the plans reviewed for appropriateness. I think the wrinkle here is that, normally, when you want to demolish a contributing structure, you are supposed to simultaneously submit plans for what you plan to put in its place. Presumably, the JHPC would want the new structure to mirror in size, style and setbacks what was there previously.

However, if a couple of years from now, the lot's owner decides he really wants to build something after all, then those same constraints re. size and similarity aren't there. He can build a much bigger home on much more of the lot.

I actually have personal experience with the process since I had to tear down my (non-contributing) 1948 single-story home (a not-so-pretty Brooks Haas original) after it flooded about five years ago.  We drew up plans for a two-story shingle style structure that, because of the extra floor, actually takes up less of the lot than the previous house.  We ran them by RAP's Design Review Committee, who made some good suggestions, and then presented them to the JHPC, who also suggested some tweaks.  When we changed our minds about what type of roof we wanted (originally spec'd architectural shingle; decided to use standing seam metal instead), we had to submit another COA. RAP didn't support the change, saying there weren't any other homes with a metal roof in our immediate neighborhood, but we were able to persuade the JHPC that the roof material was appropriate and historically accurate for our type of house (which we were trying to make look old anyway). Remember, RAP can provide advice and (sometimes too often, perhaps) criticism, but it's the JHPC that has the authority.

[thirdeye]

The owner (who, remember, is claiming he doesn't want to build anything--he just wants to leave the lot vacant for his grandkids) would have to submit a COA application with the Planning Dept and have the plans reviewed for appropriateness. I think the wrinkle here is that, normally, when you want to demolish a contributing structure, you are supposed to simultaneously submit plans for what you plan to put in its place. Presumably, the JHPC would want the new structure to mirror in size, style and setbacks what was there previously.

However, if a couple of years from now, the lot's owner decides he really wants to build something after all, then those same constraints re. size and similarity aren't there. He can build a much bigger home on much more of the lot.

I actually have personal experience with the process since I had to tear down my (non-contributing) 1948 single-story home (a not-so-pretty Brooks Haas original) after it flooded about five years ago.  We drew up plans for a two-story shingle style structure that, because of the extra floor, actually takes up less of the lot than the previous house.  We ran them by RAP's Design Review Committee, who made some good suggestions, and then presented them to the JHPC, who also suggested some tweaks.  When we changed our minds about what type of roof we wanted (originally spec'd architectural shingle; decided to use standing seam metal instead), we had to submit another COA. RAP didn't support the change, saying there weren't any other homes with a metal roof in our immediate neighborhood, but we were able to persuade the JHPC that the roof material was appropriate and historically accurate for our type of house (which we were trying to make look old anyway). Remember, RAP can provide advice and (sometimes too often, perhaps) criticism, but it's the JHPC that has the authority.

Thanks again for explaining things.

[CS Foltz]

Demo is one thing........with no plan to replace, demo should be out of the question! thirdeye.......would you be so kind to keep us posted on the outcome? I would appreciate it.......thanks!

[grimss]

The next LUZ meeting is Feb. 2nd. I believe RAP's chair has given MetroJax the .pdf of what was submitted to the council committee, so you'll all be able to see--and critique--the effort and argument.  Suggestions for improvements will, I'm sure, be welcome. As modest as this bungalow is, it really does have incredible precedent-setting potential. RAP will welcome your input.

[thelakelander]

Yes, we have a copy of the presentation.  It should be up on the front page, as a part of a MJ article sometime next week.

[CS Foltz]

Awwwwright..............much thanks grimss/lake! Information is allways welcome..........thanks again gentlemen!