While at the Snap Fitness on Oak (in the old Deluxe Cleaners building) I saw a petition on the front desk. Was wondering if anyone on here had heard of this attempt to open a cafe/coffee shop in a portion of the old Deluxe Cleaners building. Would be nice to see that half of the old building start getting some development.
Since I can never seem to get a picture on here, the petition said: The Roost, a gourmet cafe and coffee shop trying to go into the old building at 2220 oak St. According to petition RAP is trying to stop this from happening going as far to say that they "would rather have it abandoned then have our concept there."
They then explain the concept and say please join them November 12th at 6PM at 2623 Herschel St to vocalize support or to contact Jim Love.
Send me the picture and I'll post it. My email: edavis@metrojacksonville.com
A little cafe there would be awesome. There's a whole empty lot next door that could be used for parking, so I don't see that as an issue.
I wonder what RAP's problem is.
From JHAT76:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/Misc2/i-XNG7zLQ/0/O/Roost.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2015, 09:41:29 AM
jhat is there a contact info for the Roost group?
I believe everything below the picture was simply spaces to sign the petition and add a comment in support. Although, I read it over quickly and could have missed it.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2015, 09:17:09 AM
Gee it's hard to imagine why the business community thinks RAP is anti business
Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of RAP or at least what it has evolved into. I would think it could be an organization that is available for support. To help guide businesses and homeowner in ensuring they stay with the historic theme when opening / restoring. At what point did they become a Quasi agency with authority over planning and development?
What's the other side of the story? What is RAP's reason for opposing this particular project?
That's a whopping several hundred yards from the entrance to St Vincent's, if the neighbors aren't bothered by the ambulance noise then I can't imagine a cafe is going to cause some huge issue.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2015, 10:42:50 AM
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.
Nope, RAP is wrong, as usual, on this issue. I have to agree with Chris, if you can tolerate a hospital you can tolerate a cafe.
Quote from: JHAT76 on October 27, 2015, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2015, 10:42:50 AM
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 27, 2015, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: JHAT76 on October 27, 2015, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2015, 10:42:50 AM
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.
Ahh, thank you for the clarification.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 27, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
That's a whopping several hundred yards from the entrance to St Vincent's, if the neighbors aren't bothered by the ambulance noise then I can't imagine a cafe is going to cause some huge issue.
Not sure what ambulance noise due to proximity to the hospital has to do with anything since it's definitely a non-issue in that area.
That being said, I can see why neighbors would be upset about the current concept, especially if it different than what was originally planned.
Who specifically from RAP is that quote in the petition attributed to? Is that RAP's organizational stance or is that just a quote from some random person who is a member?
Why 150?
Why not 149 or 62 or 77?
;)
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.
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.
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.
QuoteSo 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)
Quote from: fieldafm on October 28, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
QuoteSo 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?
QuoteThere 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.
QuoteOuch. 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.)
(http://downtowngreensboro.net/assets/uploads/image_uploads/business_locations/Shop/The%20Kress%20Terrace/Kress%20Terrace%20-%20Rooftop-day-large.jpg)
Here's a similar proposal in Arizona:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E8dbKt8mWOk/Ue8hwL-DvVI/AAAAAAAAC_U/daA4JRFOU3U/s320/20130721_170758.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E-ltITGKtHQ/Ue8hgEN-IJI/AAAAAAAAC_E/34Ju3NzF8BY/s400/Stanton+02.jpg)
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?
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 27, 2015, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: JHAT76 on October 27, 2015, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2015, 10:42:50 AM
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.
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.
Quoteso 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.
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 30, 2015, 01:21:52 AM
Quoteso 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.
Quote from: Sentient on October 30, 2015, 07:13:55 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 30, 2015, 01:21:52 AM
Quoteso 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.
Quote from: cline on October 30, 2015, 08:44:35 AM
Quote from: Sentient on October 30, 2015, 07:13:55 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 30, 2015, 01:21:52 AM
Quoteso 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?
^What you don't like is the municipal process we currently have in place.
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.
Quoteit's the entire community
Nope, its really only those neighbors that are around this particular shop. People over by Orsay could care less about this issue. You cannot go from 60 spaces to 150 and think no one is going to care. Shame on the owners for trying to pull a fast one over on the residents who live in the area, they are the ones who get the added noise, trash and human fertilizer at 1 AM, so why not allow them to be a part. All RAP does is help facilitate it.
RAP is not there to shut down the application, they are the voice for the residents who live there. They do a lot for the community. Many good people serve on the boards who you may know, including the Owners of Black Sheep, who were there last night to discuss the JBill in detail. They have been audited, Allan said, twice now by the state in 2 years and when you try and operate outside of your zoning license, the state shuts them down. But of course, everyone will blame RAP when business people make stupid decisions.
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 30, 2015, 10:59:03 AM
Quoteit's the entire community
Nope, its really only those neighbors that are around this particular shop. People over by Orsay could care less about this issue. You cannot go from 60 spaces to 150 and think no one is going to care. Shame on the owners for trying to pull a fast one over on the residents who live in the area, they are the ones who get the added noise, trash and human fertilizer at 1 AM, so why not allow them to be a part. All RAP does is help facilitate it.
RAP is not there to shut down the application, they are the voice for the residents who live there. They do a lot for the community. Many good people serve on the boards who you may know, including the Owners of Black Sheep, who were there last night to discuss the JBill in detail. They have been audited, Allan said, twice now by the state in 2 years and when you try and operate outside of your zoning license, the state shuts them down. But of course, everyone will blame RAP when business people make stupid decisions.
"All RAP does is help facilitate it." need to edit that to "all RAP does is help facilitate it
when they want to". That reads better. The problem is not that zoning requires exceptions and compliance or may change things, the persistent problem is that RAP is the self anointed arbiter of these things. They are a private lobbying group and do not speak for the neighborhood.
Someone I know received this today. Someone was delivering them door to door in the area.
(http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x355/Lucasjj/Mobile%20Uploads/20151109_171813.jpg)
QuoteThey are a private lobbying group and do not speak for the neighborhood.
You are right, they do not speak for the neighborhood, but they DO get the neighborhood together and organized to review plans by businesses that are not honest and forthright. If Roost Cafe had just been honest, instead of showing one version, then trying to slide in a larger version, none of this would be necessary. In the end, there was not one issue from the neighborhood when it was a smaller venue, not one. Only when the venue decided it wanted 150 seats worth of patrons did RAP and the neighborhood come together and discuss this.
Compromise will happen, RAP helps facilitate the compromise. They never are the deciding factor.
If the ROOST people were smart, they'd have gotten ahead of this and held their own meetings and spin this more positively for themselves, but you let the neighborhood decide it, well, you are going to be SPIF out of Luck.
"potential Impacts" is framed as if there will be no positive potential impacts...
No one got a mailer from RAP when Biscotti's and Casbah were looking to get their initial custom JBill approved, even though RAP knew most of the WLA crowd would be equally against expanded liquor operations in the Shoppes and RAP itself was against any private JBill benefiting just those businesses in concept.
Explanation for this? Is this honest dealing?
Does anybody have an update from the meeting?
I do not live in the RAP area or no any RAP board members. To me having other restaurant owners on the Board seems like a huge conflict of interest. At the very least it brings up the kinds of concerns you see expressed by other posters.
Quote from: jaxjags on November 13, 2015, 09:36:24 AM
I do not live in the RAP area or no any RAP board members. To me having other restaurant owners on the Board seems like a huge conflict of interest. At the very least it brings up the kinds of concerns you see expressed by other posters.
Disagree.
Does that mean that a board member who works for Vystar would have a CoI if Chase wanted to open up a branch in the hood?
If George Jefferson were on the board, would he do all in his power to prevent Deluxe from re-opening? ;)
If you're confident in your product, you welcome competition. I'm pretty sure the RAP board member who's part of the Black Sheep Group has zero issues with another restaurant opening in the area. And in fact would welcome it with open arms being that when they drafted a J-Bill for BS in 5 points the language was to include ALL restaurants in the area that met certain requirements. (unlike other owners who tried and failed to issue more restricted legislation)
QuoteDisagree.
Does that mean that a board member who works for Vystar would have a CoI if Chase wanted to open up a branch in the hood?
If George Jefferson were on the board, would he do all in his power to prevent Deluxe from re-opening? ;)
If you're confident in your product, you welcome competition. I'm pretty sure the RAP board member who's part of the Black Sheep Group has zero issues with another restaurant opening in the area. And in fact would welcome it with open arms being that when they drafted a J-Bill for BS in 5 points the language was to include ALL restaurants in the area that met certain requirements. (unlike other owners who tried and failed to issue more restricted legislation)
Who cares about Vystar? Are you hijacking the thread to discuss Vystar or Chase?
George Jefferson? As in the fictional television character? Get a grip.
Dude - Are you watching the news lately? Black Sheep is opening up downtown, they could care less about Roost or anyone else around them. The J-Bill was presented by the Black Sheep Owner at the lastest RAP meeting, it was received with open arms by all in attendance.
Get some new material, this rant is done.
Quote from: mtraininjax on November 14, 2015, 07:43:06 AM
Get some new material, this rant is done.
Get some new glasses and reread the post. You missed the point completely. Dude.
Hi all. I live directly across the street from the proposed site of the Roost, and I'd be happy to address your questions.
RAP is conducting their own efforts, alongside but not part of the neighborhood's. Our goals in this instance happen to be the same; to prevent non-zoned development within our residential neighborhood. There are 14 family dwellings directly adjacent to the site, (it is a large property and there are several multi-family dwellings) several with school-age children. A large, noisy, late-night restaurant such as the one proposed would place huge stresses and undue burdens on the surrounding homes. We would be amenable to any type of development that met our zoning, (CRO with a historic-character overlay) but development of this type actually makes us much more vulnerable to further commercial encroachment. We are a primary corridor from King Street to Margaret Street, both of which have grown quite a bit over the last decade.
As someone who has canvassed and discussed concerns with everyone affected, I have found only a single person in favor. She owns a shop nearby and does not actually live in the area. We do appreciate your conversation. :)
I hope that everybody can come to some mutual agreement. That stretch of Oak could use some sprucing up and development.
Quote from: KPettway on November 16, 2015, 04:56:06 PM
Hi all. I live directly across the street from the proposed site of the Roost, and I'd be happy to address your questions.
RAP is conducting their own efforts, alongside but not part of the neighborhood's. Our goals in this instance happen to be the same; to prevent non-zoned development within our residential neighborhood. There are 14 family dwellings directly adjacent to the site, (it is a large property and there are several multi-family dwellings) several with school-age children. A large, noisy, late-night restaurant such as the one proposed would place huge stresses and undue burdens on the surrounding homes. We would be amenable to any type of development that met our zoning, (CRO with a historic-character overlay) but development of this type actually makes us much more vulnerable to further commercial encroachment. We are a primary corridor from King Street to Margaret Street, both of which have grown quite a bit over the last decade.
As someone who has canvassed and discussed concerns with everyone affected, I have found only a single person in favor. She owns a shop nearby and does not actually live in the area. We do appreciate your conversation. :)
Be thankful it's not one of those soooper dangerous pizza places coming in, what with the children and all...
Quote from: KPettway on November 16, 2015, 04:56:06 PM
Hi all. I live directly across the street from the proposed site of the Roost, and I'd be happy to address your questions.
RAP is conducting their own efforts, alongside but not part of the neighborhood's. Our goals in this instance happen to be the same; to prevent non-zoned development within our residential neighborhood. There are 14 family dwellings directly adjacent to the site, (it is a large property and there are several multi-family dwellings) several with school-age children. A large, noisy, late-night restaurant such as the one proposed would place huge stresses and undue burdens on the surrounding homes. We would be amenable to any type of development that met our zoning, (CRO with a historic-character overlay) but development of this type actually makes us much more vulnerable to further commercial encroachment. We are a primary corridor from King Street to Margaret Street, both of which have grown quite a bit over the last decade.
As someone who has canvassed and discussed concerns with everyone affected, I have found only a single person in favor. She owns a shop nearby and does not actually live in the area. We do appreciate your conversation. :)
I have friends who live directly across from the proposed building, and another who lives adjacent to where The Roost will be doing business. So, add that to your list of people who are in favor.
Quote from: JaxAvondale on November 16, 2015, 10:00:56 PM
I hope that everybody can come to some mutual agreement. That stretch of Oak could use some sprucing up and development.
I hope so too.
Quote from: Sentient on November 17, 2015, 09:12:16 AMBe thankful it's not one of those soooper dangerous pizza places coming in, what with the children and all...
The primary issue with the kids is being kept up at night by intoxicated patrons and the sound level of the live entertainment.
Quote from: johnnyliar on November 17, 2015, 01:53:24 PMI have friends who live directly across from the proposed building, and another who lives adjacent to where The Roost will be doing business. So, add that to your list of people who are in favor.
Johnny Liar,
Are you certain you have the location correct? While I admit I have not been able to hit every house in the entire neighborhood, I have spoken, personally, to every resident opposite the site on Oak, and every resident on the affected block. No one who lives there has admitted (to me, at any rate) being remotely in favor of this development.
Now I have not spoken to anyone at SNAP Fitness, which is in the same building as the proposed Roost site, so I guess could be considered adjacent. But it is also not a residence.
I mean, personally, I would love to live near a locally owned coffee house / restaurant with a full bar and possibly some live music on the weekends.
I don't think I would want to live somewhere nearby a place some people are trying to open that's probably going to serve some bar food and where people are going just to get drunk and listen Skynard cover bands on the patio until 2am.
I'm sure that your questioning leans more towards the former and not the latter, because, you know.... integrity.
While we're sharing anecdotal stories, I'm a member at Snap Fitness and it isn't unusual on Friday and Saturday nights to find, across the street, a group of loud, boisterous, and (presumably) intoxicated people hanging out in front of their house and having a grand ol' time.
Were they against the new business, KPettway? I'll ask them myself next time I see them. They seem nice. Maybe they'll offer me a beer out of friendship.
Why does everyone have to pile onto this guy just because they don't agree? I think it's reasonable - and very likely - that a number of residents in the area might be opposed to it. That doesn't mean they all will be - and I would love to see actual numbers and not anecdotal evidence both for and against - but it's likely that a lot of people will not want it there. That's just the nature of the beast, really - it's oftentimes a different story when you have to live next to something as opposed to just stopping by to visit it.
Anyway - I think we'd all be wise to appreciate there might be myriad opinions on this subject and not be dickheads to KPettway just because he/she has an opinion some of us might not share.
KPettway is entitled to any opinion he or she chooses to believe. I just found it amusing they say no one in the area surrounding the place is in favor of this restaurant, and when someone responded by saying "I have friends who live directly across from the proposed building, and another who lives adjacent to where The Roost will be doing business" the response is to cast doubt that Johnny Liar is even aware of the location in question.
Another way of looking at is KPettway comes in here and expects people to take him/her on good faith re: how the neighbors feel, but is skeptical when someone comes in and claims something contrary to what they posted.
Quote from: funwithteeth on November 17, 2015, 03:59:42 PM
Another way of looking at is KPettway comes in here and expects people to take him/her on good faith re: how the neighbors feel, but is skeptical when someone comes in and claims something contrary to what they posted.
Perhaps - I don't trust what either poster says. Anecdotal evidence is not really worth a whole lot, as there is no way to verify it.
But I really just don't want this to degenerate the way the whole pizza thing did. That got really ugly.
I've got a pretty good feel on how this is being presented. A good friend of mine owns a business on the same block but on Herschel, and the majority of her clientele live in the area. Just like in most everything else that comes across as a completely biased representation, this is no different.
You present an argument framed for your audience to elicit the response you desire, anecdotal or not.
QuoteI have friends who live directly across from the proposed building, and another who lives adjacent to where The Roost will be doing business. So, add that to your list of people who are in favor.
Yeah, because the Internet is full of honest and truthful posters! yeah, right!
QuoteA good friend of mine owns a business on the same block but on Herschel, and the majority of her clientele live in the area.
So what? We're not discussing business needs at 1 am in the morning. Its all about the residents and what they want. Besides SNAP, no one else is open on that block at 1 am. So nice to see your last 3 posts have not been RAP related thrashings.
Quote from: mtraininjax on November 17, 2015, 04:50:17 PM
Its all about the residents and what they want.
And I agree to some extent, but the presentation is everything.
I love the sweeping assumptions and one-sided truths presented anytime a place wants to open:
- Serving liquor automatically means loud, obnoxious drunks being belligerent outside of your bedroom window at 2 am.
- Live music automatically means amplified classic rock being blared throughout the neighborhood while people are trying to sleep.
- The area is a residential neighborhood.
- They're expanding to 150 seats because bigger is just better.
- No one in the neighborhood wants them to open
And I haven't blasted RAP or anyone else on the matter. The first post was in support of AD and BS, but the sarcasm was missed by at least one respondent. The rest has just been differing opinion. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm not saying they're wrong. I just don't agree with any of the statements above, but that's how this project is being presented.
I have mixed feelings on this one. Full disclosure I am actively engaged in moving into Riverside. I love all of the shops, bars and restaurants. I can also see the need to manage the needs of different parties.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 17, 2015, 07:56:46 PM
I have mixed feelings on this one. Full disclosure I am actively engaged in moving into Riverside. I love all of the shops, bars and restaurants. I can also see the need to manage the needs of different parties.
I'm with you on this. Putting aside the comments of the potential owners of this place said, "RAP would rather this sit abandoned" (sounds like playground BS), I'm also not of the opinion that just because it's a commercial building it's okay to be a restaurant/bar opened until 2AM. To Stephen's point earlier, this building was built next to residences because it was a day use-type place (and was historically). Now, many retail spaces aren't being used today for their historic use (most of Park and King is that way).
The current zoning plan is a little vague. For example, from a zoning perspective Orsay and Mellow Mushroom are very similar, but in reality they are very different places (and no, I don't now or ever believe that Mellow Mushroom was going to bring the apocalypse). To be clear, I'm not referring to price point, as that shouldn't matter whatsoever.
The one thing I thing is a horrible idea is outdoor seating there for dinner - no good can come from that in my opinion. Breakfast and lunch are fine by me. The other thing that seems odd is the 150 seats (don't know how I feel about that - would need to know the square footage). Obviously they're going for 150 for the SRX license (I'm 99% sure the JBill to move the requirement to 100 wouldn't apply there as the area isn't a commercial character area).
This is a tough one.
I too have trouble seeing issue here. Other 150 seat restaurants that serve liquor are not neighborhood nuisances in JAX. As others have said, they will not be playing head banging music till 2 am every night. There are still noise ordnances that need to be obeyed. If outdoor seating is an issues, fine then don't allow it. Wow, the memory of Mellow Mushrooms oppenents fades quickly in this city.
Here's the part that I have a hard time understanding: You have someone wanting to come in, remodel an empty storefront and make a go of it. How is that a bad thing? Is the market really that good that we should be poo-pooing ideas before they even get a chance to succeed or fail all on their own?
Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors. Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.
Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not. I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.
If it fits and works, than it's yet another positive for the hood. What's so bad if it doesn't work? Where's the overall negative?
If they're playing head-banging music at 2am, great, we have noise ordinances for that. If their customers are rowdy drunks, great, we have a statute addressing drunk and disorderly conduct. These gripes (that haven't actually happened) aren't zoning issues, they're things that if they happen, there is already a set of laws to deal with them. You call the cops and they stop the offending behavior. I really don't know how a biscottis'esque restaurant/coffeehouse somehow translates into automatic mayhem, but on the 1% chance it did, so what, we have laws for that. Something that likely will not happen, and that is already addressed by laws outside the zoning context if it does, isn't a valid basis to stop the place from opening, IMHO.
The neighborhood has a zoning overlay developed over two years with developers, business owners, and residents. The overlay is designed around character areas--industrial, urban transition, commercial, office and residential. The character areas tell you the appropriate use for an area. And the Overlay is less restrictive than the regular zoning code.
This property happens to be located in a residential character area and is zoned CRO. There are no restaurants in CRO zoning within the neighborhood. A 60-seat restaurant is allowed by exception in CRO. Outside sales and service is not allowed at all.
This business wants to put in a 150-seat restaurant with outside sales and service. What they want to do is not currently allowed at this location. Why not either put in a 60-seat indoor restaurant by exception or find a location that allows them to do what they want?
Quote from: Kay on November 18, 2015, 07:42:32 AM
The neighborhood has a zoning overlay developed over two years with developers, business owners, and residents. The overlay is designed around character areas--industrial, urban transition, commercial, office and residential. The character areas tell you the appropriate use for an area. And the Overlay is less restrictive than the regular zoning code.
This property happens to be located in a residential character area and is zoned CRO. There are no restaurants in CRO zoning within the neighborhood. A 60-seat restaurant is allowed by exception in CRO. Outside sales and service is not allowed at all.
This business wants to put in a 150-seat restaurant with outside sales and service. What they want to do is not currently allowed at this location. Why not either put in a 60-seat indoor restaurant by exception or find a location that allows them to do what they want?
Yeah, and biscotti's wants a 4COP when their <150 seating at that location doesn't qualify for it, which RAP is supporting. What's the difference? Mellow Mushroom was zoned for a more intensive use than it actually became, and their seating easily qualified, and yet RAP opposed it? What's the difference? Who picks what gets supported and what doesn't?
No offense but it kind of reminds me of this lately...
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wz-PtEJEaqY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 17, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors. Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.
Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not. I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.
Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).
Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.
BTW, for the record I don't have my mind made up on this one - I want to understand it more. The building is a commercial structure in nature (this would be completely different if someone wanted to turn a house into this restaurant), but it isn't really zoned for this. It's zoned CRO (which an example of a CRO business would be the dry cleaner that used to be in it, or a psychologist's office - I don't remember every use the overlay mentions off the top of my head)
Quote from: Steve on November 18, 2015, 08:24:29 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 17, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors. Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.
Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not. I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.
Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).
Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.
It was mixed use with a heavy dash of commercial for 90 years, and the area is still the same structurally with apartments over businesses, multiple operating restaurants within a couple blocks to either side of this site, a gym next door to it, a quickie mart in front of it, and a 7-11 and giant hospital behind it. That, and to get to your point, Mellow tried to open in a commercial character zone, so why'd they oppose it again? To an outside observer, this is all starting to look very arbitrary.
Quote from: KPettway on November 17, 2015, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: johnnyliar on November 17, 2015, 01:53:24 PMI have friends who live directly across from the proposed building, and another who lives adjacent to where The Roost will be doing business. So, add that to your list of people who are in favor.
Johnny Liar,
Are you certain you have the location correct? While I admit I have not been able to hit every house in the entire neighborhood, I have spoken, personally, to every resident opposite the site on Oak, and every resident on the affected block. No one who lives there has admitted (to me, at any rate) being remotely in favor of this development.
Now I have not spoken to anyone at SNAP Fitness, which is in the same building as the proposed Roost site, so I guess could be considered adjacent. But it is also not a residence.
I am 100% certain of the location that those I mentioned are in favor of the proposed development.
Obviously, I can't prove that right now, nor do I really want to go through the trouble to prove it, as it is not my neighborhood and I could really care less. I just wanted to let you know that perhaps you were not hearing what all people living closest to the development thought.
I don't care if you believe me, but a development like this doesn't seem too out of place with all of the other seemingly commercial development all around it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 18, 2015, 08:44:28 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 18, 2015, 08:24:29 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 17, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors. Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.
Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not. I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.
Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).
Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.
It was mixed use with a heavy dash of commercial for 90 years, and the area is still the same structurally with apartments over businesses, multiple operating restaurants within a couple blocks to either side of this site, a gym next door to it, a quickie mart in front of it, and a 7-11 and giant hospital behind it. That, and to get to your point, Mellow tried to open in a commercial character zone, so why'd they oppose it again? To an outside observer, this is all starting to look very arbitrary.
I'm not going to speak for RAP here, but people seem to think that when a development plan comes along, RAP is 100% for or 100% against it. This isn't the case at all. I can say personally, I love Mellow Mushroom, and I'm glad they are there. I'm not going to rehash that one, but there were certain aspects that I was not in favor of, and of the ones that I felt strongly against, all of them were dropped from the final plan.
I haven't seen the final plan here so I don't know how I feel on this. Conceptually, if you were to tell me that a small breakfast place were to open up, I'd be fine with it. If you told me a nightclub wanted to open up, I'm be against it. This is obviously somewhere in between, which is how most developments are. This is why saying "I'm 100% for" or "I'm 100% against" is disingenuous to the process.
At present, the property isn't zoned for it - this is why the rezoning process exists.
Quote from: funwithteeth on November 17, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
While we're sharing anecdotal stories, I'm a member at Snap Fitness and it isn't unusual on Friday and Saturday nights to find, across the street, a group of loud, boisterous, and (presumably) intoxicated people hanging out in front of their house and having a grand ol' time.
Were they against the new business, KPettway? I'll ask them myself next time I see them. They seem nice. Maybe they'll offer me a beer out of friendship.
They were against it, but primarily because they park on the street, and they foresee having to walk several blocks every night from wherever they can find to park when they get home from work.
They likely would give you a beer. They're super-nice folks.
Quote from: funwithteeth on November 17, 2015, 03:59:42 PM
Another way of looking at is KPettway comes in here and expects people to take him/her on good faith re: how the neighbors feel, but is skeptical when someone comes in and claims something contrary to what they posted.
It's a fair point. I don't expect you to take what I write here on simple faith, this is all a conversation. However, I would imagine that introducing a different point of view would at least give us all something to talk about.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 17, 2015, 07:56:46 PM
I have mixed feelings on this one. Full disclosure I am actively engaged in moving into Riverside. I love all of the shops, bars and restaurants. I can also see the need to manage the needs of different parties.
I love all of those things too. I particularly love the fact that most everything I could want is with a five-minute walk of my house. That's fantastic, and far enough away not to be a burden. My thinking is only that the neighborhood will be better served as a whole by intelligent planning of incoming development. Houses where people want to live, and restaurants where people want to eat.
No one seems against another restaurant in Riverside... I know I am not. I am only making the observation that it could be easily placed where it did not interfere with anyone's lives.
Quote from: jaxjags on November 17, 2015, 11:09:43 PM
I too have trouble seeing issue here. Other 150 seat restaurants that serve liquor are not neighborhood nuisances in JAX. As others have said, they will not be playing head banging music till 2 am every night. There are still noise ordnances that need to be obeyed. If outdoor seating is an issues, fine then don't allow it. Wow, the memory of Mellow Mushrooms oppenents fades quickly in this city.
A primary issue is commercial encroachment. Regardless of the type of restaurant, if a PUD is obtained to develop it, it will be MUCH easier for the next plan to come along, point to the Roost, and say, "They are already here, this is obviously the character of the area, we're coming in too." Added to this is the second building on the property, included in the PUD, which the developers may use to create whatever they wish. Encroachment issues are even higher when there are two inappropriate businesses instead of one.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 17, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Here's the part that I have a hard time understanding: You have someone wanting to come in, remodel an empty storefront and make a go of it. How is that a bad thing? Is the market really that good that we should be poo-pooing ideas before they even get a chance to succeed or fail all on their own?
Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors. Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.
Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not. I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.
If it fits and works, than it's yet another positive for the hood. What's so bad if it doesn't work? Where's the overall negative?
The PUD is permanent and stays with the property. The neighborhood will have zero input on what comes in afterward, following the trail blazed by the Roost.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 18, 2015, 07:27:11 AM
If they're playing head-banging music at 2am, great, we have noise ordinances for that. If their customers are rowdy drunks, great, we have a statute addressing drunk and disorderly conduct. These gripes (that haven't actually happened) aren't zoning issues, they're things that if they happen, there is already a set of laws to deal with them. You call the cops and they stop the offending behavior. I really don't know how a biscottis'esque restaurant/coffeehouse somehow translates into automatic mayhem, but on the 1% chance it did, so what, we have laws for that. Something that likely will not happen, and that is already addressed by laws outside the zoning context if it does, isn't a valid basis to stop the place from opening, IMHO.
By the time we are calling the police for noise violations, we have already lost. What the community wants is development that follows the guidelines in our zoning... which we put into place to guide development. Simple as that.
Quote from: Kay on November 18, 2015, 07:42:32 AM
This business wants to put in a 150-seat restaurant with outside sales and service. What they want to do is not currently allowed at this location. Why not either put in a 60-seat indoor restaurant by exception or find a location that allows them to do what they want?
There certainly would have been a lot fewer objections.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 18, 2015, 08:44:28 AM
It was mixed use with a heavy dash of commercial for 90 years, and the area is still the same structurally with apartments over businesses, multiple operating restaurants within a couple blocks to either side of this site, a gym next door to it, a quickie mart in front of it, and a 7-11 and giant hospital behind it. That, and to get to your point, Mellow tried to open in a commercial character zone, so why'd they oppose it again? To an outside observer, this is all starting to look very arbitrary.
If you follow the zones, you see that those businesses (save the gym and the quickie mart) are zoned differently. This is one reason why the neighbors have suggested simply finding a place where restaurants are already features of the landscape... like a few blocks away in several different directions. All that is being asked is that developers follow the rules already in place, instead of rewriting them to our detriment.
QuoteNo one seems against another restaurant in Riverside...
Amen, no one is against another restaurant in Riverside or Avondale or Brooklyn, the issue here is that the ROOST owners LIED to the residents, the City and fellow businesses. They submitted a plan for 60 seats, then decided to change it to 150 using the same zoning.
If I was a resident near there, I would not trust them either.
And now this has made its way to the JBJ
Residents of Riverside come out against planned Roost restaurant in Oak Street building - Jacksonville Business Journal http://snip.ly/E4Va (http://snip.ly/E4Va)
RAP & Co are spearheading this anti-development movement (from what I saw on this new FB group "P.R.O.U.D."), surprise, surprise. Funny thing, I've seen RAP folks climb out of their big ol' honkin Amerikan SUV at Snap, the fitness center they live three or four blocks down from.
No wonder they are so concerned about the cars!
I lived off College and walked blocks to Five Points/Oak St all the time, in the sunshine, in the rain, in the cold. Because that's what you do in a walkable neighborhood. This type of infill will FORCE people (like the elite folks of RAP) to WALK or BIKE to places. Isn't that a crazy thought? I now live in Avondale and bike to Snap instead - screw cars.
Who knows, maybe all of this infill will force the city to start looking at better mass transit solutions when Riverside is thriving with bars, cafes, restaurants all around and cars can't fit any more!
Sorry RAP/Anti Development people, I welcome businesses coming into these beautiful abandoned buildings and creating some new wonderful content for me to WALK to.
I just skimmed through the thread - and if people are not in fact against a new spot opening and the disagreement stems from seating, that's a different story. While 150 may be too much, I don't think 80-100 is bad. Again, it forces people to pursue other methods of getting around the 'hood. Like a bus, or an Uber, or a bike. Or walking...
We recently purchased a house in Avondale, and the immediate development around the homes we looked at played a huge factor in our ultimate decision. If having commercial property across the street is an issue with a renter or buyer, look somewhere else (which is exactly what we did). People move to riverside for the reason of having establishments such as Roost within walking or biking distance.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 18, 2015, 07:27:11 AM
If they're playing head-banging music at 2am, great, we have noise ordinances for that. If their customers are rowdy drunks, great, we have a statute addressing drunk and disorderly conduct. These gripes (that haven't actually happened) aren't zoning issues, they're things that if they happen, there is already a set of laws to deal with them. You call the cops and they stop the offending behavior. I really don't know how a biscottis'esque restaurant/coffeehouse somehow translates into automatic mayhem, but on the 1% chance it did, so what, we have laws for that. Something that likely will not happen, and that is already addressed by laws outside the zoning context if it does, isn't a valid basis to stop the place from opening, IMHO.
Exactly!!!! enough of the NIMBY BS fear mongering. Has anyone eve rbeen out at 1AM? Do you know how few places are even open in Jax, let alone restaurants with full menu kitchen service (required under SRX) at that time? Very very few...
And all this BS of "historical uses"... that shouldn't be a factor AT ALL. History is about change. Be aware of that... Almost none of the restaurants around started out that way...
Quote from: KPettway on November 18, 2015, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 17, 2015, 07:56:46 PM
I have mixed feelings on this one. Full disclosure I am actively engaged in moving into Riverside. I love all of the shops, bars and restaurants. I can also see the need to manage the needs of different parties.
I love all of those things too. I particularly love the fact that most everything I could want is with a five-minute walk of my house. That's fantastic, and far enough away not to be a burden. My thinking is only that the neighborhood will be better served as a whole by intelligent planning of incoming development. Houses where people want to live, and restaurants where people want to eat.
No one seems against another restaurant in Riverside... I know I am not. I am only making the observation that it could be easily placed where it did not interfere with anyone's lives.
Intelligent planning... oh the hubris of you people... Soviet Union mean anything to you? You think your little coffee klatch is smarter than the market? Hahahahahahahaha
Quote from: BoldCityRealist on November 18, 2015, 03:47:25 PM
I just skimmed through the thread - and if people are not in fact against a new spot opening and the disagreement stems from seating, that's a different story. While 150 may be too much, I don't think 80-100 is bad. Again, it forces people to pursue other methods of getting around the 'hood. Like a bus, or an Uber, or a bike. Or walking...
I've said it many times... the SRX/alcohol licensing laws discriminate against small landlords and small business... they force 100 or 150 seat requirements for no other reason than to restrict access to alcohol. which is absurd in 2015. Ackwardsbass J'Burg again at work... Bold New City stuff here...
Do you know how much more it costs to build out and then staff a 150 seat restaurant? It's unreal. In NYC, SFO, LA, Chicago... you see plenty of sub 50 seat places... hell many sub 25 seat places... but you can't here because you can't make the margins with just beer and wine and food...
Quote from: Sentient on November 18, 2015, 05:07:40 PM
Quote from: dp8541 on November 18, 2015, 04:44:33 PM
We recently purchased a house in Avondale, and the immediate development around the homes we looked at played a huge factor in our ultimate decision. If having commercial property across the street is an issue with a renter or buyer, look somewhere else (which is exactly what we did). People move to riverside for the reason of having establishments such as Roost within walking or biking distance.
Better to have an unmitigated environmental hazard site as a prominent feature of your neighborhood. That will preserve it's character and drive up land values!
Whew... we kept out those bastards with their restaurant and preserved our cancer cluster...
I hate the way this conversation is devolving. No need to call people anti Developement for disagreeing about the use of one building.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 18, 2015, 07:19:50 PM
I hate the way this conversation is devolving. No need to call people anti Developement for disagreeing about the use of one building.
Agree. But the new MJ Way.
QuoteResidents push back against planned restaurant in Riverside
Some Riverside residents are pushing back against a requested change in zoning that would allow a restaurant to open in a vacant building on Oak Street.
The pushback comes after two local developers, JC Demetree and Ted Stein, put forward the possibility of opening a 150-seat restaurant called Roost in the former Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners at 2216 Oak Street. The developers are looking to change the zoning for that building, as well as half of the adjacent De Luxe Launderette building, from a commercial residential and office space to a planned unit development.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/11/18/residents-push-back-against-planned-restaurant-in.html
so they would rather just have a vacant building?
Quote from: thelakelander on November 18, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
QuoteResidents push back against planned restaurant in Riverside
Some Riverside residents are pushing back against a requested change in zoning that would allow a restaurant to open in a vacant building on Oak Street.
The pushback comes after two local developers, JC Demetree and Ted Stein, put forward the possibility of opening a 150-seat restaurant called Roost in the former Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners at 2216 Oak Street. The developers are looking to change the zoning for that building, as well as half of the adjacent De Luxe Launderette building, from a commercial residential and office space to a planned unit development.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/11/18/residents-push-back-against-planned-restaurant-in.html
Holy smokes.... this reporter is an absolute idiot letting Kevin write an anti development article for her and seeking NO other sources for comment... like not one direct sourced comment from the developer.
and this Pettway sounds like a complete tool. such arrogance... should be allowed just for this alone.
"Kevin Pettway, who lives across the street from the property, said he's concerned about the proximity of the in-the-works restaurant to homes. The restaurant would have 32 outdoor seats in addition to the interior space.
"The primary concern of the community is the fact that the Oak Street corridor between King Street and Margaret Street is vulnerable to commercial encroachment," Pettway said. "Our best use for that property is residences. We actually would love to see something put in there and see that property develop, but we would like to see it develop intelligently."
""It would be fine in a different place," Pettway said. "Many of our neighbors have expressed that if this were a few blocks away, they'd be happy to go there.""
really... he speaks for the whole community it appears... and will be the arbiter of what constitutes "intelligent" development... But all is not lost, he would deign to allow it in someone else's backyard...
Hey Kevin... if you are so intelligent why not buy the place and do something with it yourself?
Oh but if I would hit the Mega Millions. I'd raze that place and put up a 10 story HUD project for you to look at... LOL Or a methadone clinic, in keeping with the historic "character" of the area...
Mellow Mushroom is not a PUD as the article states; it is zoned CCG-1. 5 Points Village is an example of why not to have PUDs.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 18, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
QuoteResidents push back against planned restaurant in Riverside
Some Riverside residents are pushing back against a requested change in zoning that would allow a restaurant to open in a vacant building on Oak Street.
The pushback comes after two local developers, JC Demetree and Ted Stein, put forward the possibility of opening a 150-seat restaurant called Roost in the former Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners at 2216 Oak Street. The developers are looking to change the zoning for that building, as well as half of the adjacent De Luxe Launderette building, from a commercial residential and office space to a planned unit development.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/11/18/residents-push-back-against-planned-restaurant-in.html
Perhaps you need to read it again if you did not comprehend the developers point of view in the article. It may be too much to ask that you raise your level of discourse.
Quote from: Sentient on November 18, 2015, 08:54:22 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 18, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
QuoteResidents push back against planned restaurant in Riverside
Some Riverside residents are pushing back against a requested change in zoning that would allow a restaurant to open in a vacant building on Oak Street.
The pushback comes after two local developers, JC Demetree and Ted Stein, put forward the possibility of opening a 150-seat restaurant called Roost in the former Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners at 2216 Oak Street. The developers are looking to change the zoning for that building, as well as half of the adjacent De Luxe Launderette building, from a commercial residential and office space to a planned unit development.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/11/18/residents-push-back-against-planned-restaurant-in.html
Holy smokes.... this reporter is an absolute idiot letting Kevin write an anti development article for her and seeking NO other sources for comment... like not one direct sourced comment from the developer.
and this Pettway sounds like a complete tool. such arrogance... should be allowed just for this alone.
"Kevin Pettway, who lives across the street from the property, said he's concerned about the proximity of the in-the-works restaurant to homes. The restaurant would have 32 outdoor seats in addition to the interior space.
"The primary concern of the community is the fact that the Oak Street corridor between King Street and Margaret Street is vulnerable to commercial encroachment," Pettway said. "Our best use for that property is residences. We actually would love to see something put in there and see that property develop, but we would like to see it develop intelligently."
""It would be fine in a different place," Pettway said. "Many of our neighbors have expressed that if this were a few blocks away, they'd be happy to go there.""
really... he speaks for the whole community it appears... and will be the arbiter of what constitutes "intelligent" development... But all is not lost, he would deign to allow it in someone else's backyard...
Hey Kevin... if you are so intelligent why not buy the place and do something with it yourself?
Oh but if I would hit the Mega Millions. I'd raze that place and put up a 10 story HUD project for you to look at... LOL Or a methadone clinic, in keeping with the historic "character" of the area...
Quote from: Kay on November 18, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
Perhaps you need to read it again if you did not comprehend the developers point of view in the article. It may be too much to ask that you raise your level of discourse.
Quote from: Sentient on November 18, 2015, 08:54:22 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 18, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
QuoteResidents push back against planned restaurant in Riverside
Some Riverside residents are pushing back against a requested change in zoning that would allow a restaurant to open in a vacant building on Oak Street.
The pushback comes after two local developers, JC Demetree and Ted Stein, put forward the possibility of opening a 150-seat restaurant called Roost in the former Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners at 2216 Oak Street. The developers are looking to change the zoning for that building, as well as half of the adjacent De Luxe Launderette building, from a commercial residential and office space to a planned unit development.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/11/18/residents-push-back-against-planned-restaurant-in.html
Holy smokes.... this reporter is an absolute idiot letting Kevin write an anti development article for her and seeking NO other sources for comment... like not one direct sourced comment from the developer.
and this Pettway sounds like a complete tool. such arrogance... should be allowed just for this alone.
"Kevin Pettway, who lives across the street from the property, said he's concerned about the proximity of the in-the-works restaurant to homes. The restaurant would have 32 outdoor seats in addition to the interior space.
"The primary concern of the community is the fact that the Oak Street corridor between King Street and Margaret Street is vulnerable to commercial encroachment," Pettway said. "Our best use for that property is residences. We actually would love to see something put in there and see that property develop, but we would like to see it develop intelligently."
""It would be fine in a different place," Pettway said. "Many of our neighbors have expressed that if this were a few blocks away, they'd be happy to go there.""
really... he speaks for the whole community it appears... and will be the arbiter of what constitutes "intelligent" development... But all is not lost, he would deign to allow it in someone else's backyard...
Hey Kevin... if you are so intelligent why not buy the place and do something with it yourself?
Oh but if I would hit the Mega Millions. I'd raze that place and put up a 10 story HUD project for you to look at... LOL Or a methadone clinic, in keeping with the historic "character" of the area...
show me the direct quote from any developer. can you?
QuoteWhile 150 may be too much, I don't think 80-100 is bad.
Its too much for many to comprehend here, so the short, short version. 60 was the original number of seats, then ROOSTer came back and the chicken wanted 150 instead of 60. So 60 was a done deal, then the owners lied and really wanted a larger number for the same small space.
No one is against development. But a lot of honesty will go a long way.
Quote from: dp8541 on November 18, 2015, 04:44:33 PM
We recently purchased a house in Avondale, and the immediate development around the homes we looked at played a huge factor in our ultimate decision. If having commercial property across the street is an issue with a renter or buyer, look somewhere else (which is exactly what we did). People move to riverside for the reason of having establishments such as Roost within walking or biking distance.
Exactly - How do we expect for real connected and walkable neighborhoods to develop like other cities of Washington DC, SF, Phiily,etc.
Quote from: Steve on November 18, 2015, 08:24:29 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 17, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors. Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.
Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not. I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.
Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).
Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.
BTW, for the record I don't have my mind made up on this one - I want to understand it more. The building is a commercial structure in nature (this would be completely different if someone wanted to turn a house into this restaurant), but it isn't really zoned for this. It's zoned CRO (which an example of a CRO business would be the dry cleaner that used to be in it, or a psychologist's office - I don't remember every use the overlay mentions off the top of my head)
Steve, I work in the pulp and paper industry and the chance of getting the proper environmental permits for a new paper mill ANYWHERE IN THE US is slim to none. So not a very good comparison. LOL
Quote from: jaxjags on November 18, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Exactly - How do we expect for real connected and walkable neighborhoods to develop like other cities of Washington DC, SF, Phiily,etc.
Forget about it. What we call dense in Jax would be considered a suburb in the cities you just mentioned. Unless Jax builds a neighborhood of such density completely from scratch in a burned out area like LaVilla or Sugar Hill (where no one lives), it won't be happening.
Quote from: Sentient on November 18, 2015, 08:54:22 PM
really... he speaks for the whole community it appears... and will be the arbiter of what constitutes "intelligent" development... But all is not lost, he would deign to allow it in someone else's backyard...
Erm... he said, ""
Many of our neighbors have expressed that if this were a few blocks away, they'd be happy to go there."
Many - not all. I don't think he is saying everyone is opposed. I find it interesting how you so stridently take offence at his apparent attempts to speak for "the whole community" yet haven't bothered to call out those posters in this thread who have said things like, "People move to riverside for the reason of having establishments such as Roost within walking or biking distance."
Quote from: Adam White on November 19, 2015, 07:18:46 AM
Quote from: Sentient on November 18, 2015, 08:54:22 PM
really... he speaks for the whole community it appears... and will be the arbiter of what constitutes "intelligent" development... But all is not lost, he would deign to allow it in someone else's backyard...
Erm... he said, ""Many of our neighbors have expressed that if this were a few blocks away, they'd be happy to go there."
Many - not all. I don't think he is saying everyone is opposed. I find it interesting how you so stridently take offence at his apparent attempts to speak for "the whole community" yet haven't bothered to call out those posters in this thread who have said things like, "People move to riverside for the reason of having establishments such as Roost within walking or biking distance."
Try reading the actual quote, in context next time Adam - to wit
""The primary concern of
the community is the fact that the Oak Street corridor between King Street and Margaret Street is vulnerable to commercial encroachment," Pettway said. "
Our best use for that property is residences.
We actually would love to see something put in there and see that property develop, but
we would like to see it develop intelligently.""
Still have smart mouth comment?
Quote from: thelakelander on November 19, 2015, 06:22:27 AM
Quote from: jaxjags on November 18, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Exactly - How do we expect for real connected and walkable neighborhoods to develop like other cities of Washington DC, SF, Phiily,etc.
Forget about it. What we call dense in Jax would be considered a suburb in the cities you just mentioned. Unless Jax builds a neighborhood of such density completely from scratch in a burned out area like LaVilla or Sugar Hill (where no one lives), it won't be happening.
There are some nice older suburbs of Chicago that are pretty walkable. Oak Park, Evanston, Wilmette, etc. They are very pleasant and more like Riverside or Springfield with more main street activity (Jacksonville's densest neighborhoods). I think Jacksonville's core neighborhoods should forget about trying to be like inner city DC and Chicago like Lake said and focus more on building upon what they are now, more like the walkable older suburbs of those cities.
Quote from: jaxjags on November 18, 2015, 11:31:39 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 18, 2015, 08:24:29 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 17, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors. Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.
Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not. I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.
Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).
Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.
BTW, for the record I don't have my mind made up on this one - I want to understand it more. The building is a commercial structure in nature (this would be completely different if someone wanted to turn a house into this restaurant), but it isn't really zoned for this. It's zoned CRO (which an example of a CRO business would be the dry cleaner that used to be in it, or a psychologist's office - I don't remember every use the overlay mentions off the top of my head)
Steve, I work in the pulp and paper industry and the chance of getting the proper environmental permits for a new paper mill ANYWHERE IN THE US is slim to none. So not a very good comparison. LOL
The point was something that isn't great to live next to you. I could have used Paper Mill, Steel Factory, Wal-Mart SuperCenter, or a variety of different things. The point is just because a business is viable doesn't make it suited for next to single family homes.
Quote from: Sentient on November 19, 2015, 07:26:48 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 19, 2015, 07:18:46 AM
Quote from: Sentient on November 18, 2015, 08:54:22 PM
really... he speaks for the whole community it appears... and will be the arbiter of what constitutes "intelligent" development... But all is not lost, he would deign to allow it in someone else's backyard...
Erm... he said, ""Many of our neighbors have expressed that if this were a few blocks away, they'd be happy to go there."
Many - not all. I don't think he is saying everyone is opposed. I find it interesting how you so stridently take offence at his apparent attempts to speak for "the whole community" yet haven't bothered to call out those posters in this thread who have said things like, "People move to riverside for the reason of having establishments such as Roost within walking or biking distance."
Try reading the actual quote, in context next time Adam - to wit
""The primary concern of the community is the fact that the Oak Street corridor between King Street and Margaret Street is vulnerable to commercial encroachment," Pettway said. "Our best use for that property is residences. We actually would love to see something put in there and see that property develop, but we would like to see it develop intelligently.""
Still have smart mouth comment?
Fair enough - I see your point. I took the comment about many neighbours to be qualification. It's clear that KPettway is acting as a spokesman (for exactly whom, I don't know). I have no issue with his points - I think they're fair and if I lived across the street from a proposed restaurant, I'd possibly oppose it or want changes. It's to be expected. I wouldn't be surprised if the strength of opposition to the proposal weakens the further you move away from the site.
All that said - he (KPettway) has been perfectly nice. There is no reason for you to be a [redacted]. He's not insulted you or anything. I don't see why you can't just accept that he has a different opinion without immediately feeling the need to make it personal. You should be able to disagree and remain civil while you do it.
Or maybe you're just angry at the world because mommy and daddy put you on restriction because you got too many Ds and Fs on your most recent report card. How's that for a smart mouth comment, [redacted]?
Well done Stephen, well done. Its too close to Thanksgiving to allow so many turkeys to run loose in the yard.
http://residentnews.net/2015/12/01/neighbors-rally-restaurant-planned-laundry-center/ (http://residentnews.net/2015/12/01/neighbors-rally-restaurant-planned-laundry-center/)
New article on the Roost in the Resident today....
QuoteNeighbors rally against restaurant planned for old laundry center
Residents believe Roost is fox in henhouse
In what may be an ironic choice for a name, The Roost is being viewed by residents as the fox in the henhouse, believing that approval of the plan bodes ill for the neighborhood.
What was initially pitched as a small, 60-seat breakfast and lunch café expanded into a 150-seat late-night restaurant after the property owner, Anthony Saleeba, offered up two of his three buildings at the former Deluxe cleaner site on Oak Street to restaurant developers Ted Stein and J.C. Demetree.
Once word spread about The Roost, residents joined forces to oppose the plan. In a matter of just a few weeks, a group led by Kevin Pettway coalesced formally as P.R.O.U.D.: Positive Riverside Optimized Urban Development. Pettway, who lives near the proposed restaurant, created a website, proudofriverside.com, and initiated social media to find supporters against the plan.
"My wife and I were on a walk when I first heard about the proposed development from a neighbor who had discovered it from city government. We immediately began asking around to see what anyone else knew, and shortly afterwards, I happened to bump into Ted Stein himself," said Pettway. "He pitched me the initial, smaller-scale version of the restaurant. At first my attitude was to wait and see, but I quickly became alarmed and began meeting with other concerned neighbors to organize opposition to this proposal."
RoostSitePlanIn early November, Stein and Demetree circulated a petition among residents living on Riverside Avenue, Oak Street, and Herschel Street as well as the cross streets in between to solicit support to rezone the property at 2220 Oak St. They invited the community to hear about their proposed restaurant on Nov. 12 at the Riverside Avondale Preservation office.
The neighborhood is currently zoned CRO (Commercial Residential Office) in a Residential Historic Character Area. Due to the amount of deviations needed for the restaurant, Saleeba is applying for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to "facilitate the redevelopment of a commercial area and provide for a unified scheme of development."
Neighbors flatly oppose Roost
Pettway said he and a group of concerned citizens met with Riverside Avondale Preservation in late October and stated only one person at that meeting was in favor of the idea.
"Everyone else was clearly opposed," he said. "[At the Nov. 12 meeting] I saw a packed room of neighbors united in their objection to the plan. Even J.C. [Demetree] said, and I quote, 'I'm a little taken aback by this.' Clearly, the developers underestimated the strength of the opposition to this proposal."
RoostRenderings-1Among the concerned neighbors is Roxanne Henkle, who lives in a 100-year-old carriage house across the street from the old Deluxe cleaners. A resident since 1990, Henkle is opposed to The Roost for a variety of reasons.
"I am concerned that the proposed 150-seat restaurant would have an adversely intense impact upon our area. Currently, Snap Fitness has taken up much of the street parking. Parking requirements alone would displace many residential and tenant parking," Henkle said. "Add a 150-seat restaurant with alcohol and the street will suffer from constant strain of traffic, not to mention the effects of late night hours on the neighborhood that is mostly residential."
Nancy Murrey-Settle and her sister Ruth Thompson grew up in the neighborhood and they were in attendance at the standing-room only meeting. "My grandparents bought two homes in 1922, and we have been stewards of the property and neighborhood since then," said Murrey-Settle. "We definitely have deep roots and a stake in all of this."
Murrey-Settle said there is much to lose if the PUD is allowed against the zoning currently in place. "If we allow too many exemptions, variances and, in this case, a complete PUD, that will change the fabric of our residential areas in Riverside. We can say goodbye to many of the homeowners who have invested their time and money to make Riverside the 'hot' area it is," she said. "What attracts the developers to our area is exactly what they will destroy by their presence."
Not right fit, says RAP
The PUD notes there will be 41 parking spots onsite, but according to the Municipal Code, 54 off-street parking spaces are required. The PUD indicates 13 spaces on the street will pick up the difference, however those spaces are shared with Snap Fitness, a gym located next door.
RoostRenderings-3Parking issues as well as increased noise and traffic are not the only concerns. At the Nov. 12 meeting, several people raised the issue of the PUD itself, which is filed under the property owner.
"Their Planned Urban Development (PUD) re-zoning request will stay with the property forever, making it easy for another bar to use it, without public input, should this development fail," said Pettway. "Unfortunately, such failure is statistically likely. It's a slippery slope, and we don't want to go there."
Run-off is another concern. Riverside Avenue residents living along the back side of the Oak Street property are currently dealing with water intrusion. One homeowner said she has 1,300 square feet of mold in her house from run-off behind Snap Fitness. She, along with others, is concerned that a paved parking lot will increase run-off, which causes flooding behind the property.
In response, Steve Diebenow, attorney for the developers, stated development of the property is not allowed to cause runoff that will hurt neighboring properties.
"If the lot is paved, we might as well send our neighbors little boats to use for the summer in their back yards," said Henkle, in an email to city officials.
At stake, too, is the precedent that will be set if this PUD is approved by Land Use and Zoning, the Planning Commission, and City Council. Although Diebenow claimed an approval will not set a precedent because all applications are judged on their own merits, Carmen Godwin, RAP executive director, disagrees.
"This absolutely does set a precedent. It's important what happens in this case," she said. "It's just not the right fit for this location. There is not one other property zoned CRO with a restaurant in our district."
Godwin stated RAP had offered to help Stein and Demetree find another, more suitable location for their restaurant, but they said they knew what they were getting into.
"They are asking for so much more than what's allowed. If they are not willing to negotiate, what role can RAP play?" she asked. "It's tough for us to be a mediator."
Murrey-Settle said if it were not for RAP, Riverside would not be the hot neighborhood it is. "When we did the remodel at our house we respected the codes and restrictions that come with living in a neighborhood that has a historical designation," she said. "I expect big moneyed developers to do the same."
RoostRenderings-2During the Nov. 12 meeting at RAP's office, residents asked for changes to the PUD, which Diebenow and the developers indicated they would take into consideration. Although a revised document was not available at press time, Stein and Demetree issued a statement:
"We listened attentively to all of the concerns shared by the neighbors, staying after to answer every question. We were encouraged by the number of supporters in attendance after sharing our vision for The Roost during the course of the evening. As Jacksonville natives, we want The Roost to blend into the artistic fabric of Riverside.
"After listening to the concerns of the neighbors we decided to make changes to the initial concept to ensure that we re-develop these two vacant, dilapidated, historic buildings into something that makes Riverside proud. Our vision for The Roost can only succeed, and be made better, through a constructive and positive dialogue with all interested parties."
For or against this development?
Come air your thoughts on the proposal at City Hall tomorrow, 5:30PM 4th floor, conference room A.
Initial renderings here. Super excited and hope this happens! I need a diner in the 'hood!
https://www.facebook.com/TheRoostRiverside
The Facebook page gives the impression it is a day time operation--however, the concept is to be open till at least midnight with outside sales and service. The location sits across from and in front of single-family homes. Not the right location for a late night large restaurant. Now if they actually wanted to be a small diner open for breakfast and lunch, that might be OK.
150 seats-Orsay, Blacksheep. The zoning is CRO and location is a Residential Character Area within the Overlay and restaurants are not allowed. What they want to do is allowed in CCG-2 by right which is three levels of intensity higher than CRO. They need to find a different location. Riverside has 9 commercial character areas and the urban transition area where they can go.
How many seats are going in South Kitchen again? ;)
QuoteHow many seats are going in South Kitchen again?
Does it matter? Its on the spot of the old Yesterdays which easily in the day was 150 if not more when there were big shows there. Non-issue.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 27, 2016, 10:58:54 PM
How many seats are going in South Kitchen again? ;)
The South Kitchen parcel is zoned CCG-1 and in a Commercial Character Area. It is allowed by right. The Overlay is the law in Riverside Avondale and it is a bit discouraging that some believe it can be ignored. Again, the Roost wants to greatly up zone a CRO parcel in a Residential Character Area. I hope you can appreciate the difference.
The Overlay reduces requirements in Office, Commercial and UTA areas in return for preventing further commercial intensity in the designated Residential Character Areas.
Right or wrong, good or bad Riverside and Avondale get ticked about everything that wants to open. I just love the empty building sitting there. I can't imagine it will ever be anything but empty if this gets squashed. Oh well. Let me remind everyone that I lived in the area for over 30 years so I'm not just an outsider giving an opinion. And I recall how many people complained about Orsay.....
Quote from: avonjax on January 30, 2016, 10:17:33 AM
Right or wrong, good or bad Riverside and Avondale get ticked about everything that wants to open. I just love the empty building sitting there. I can't imagine it will ever be anything but empty if this gets squashed. Oh well. Let me remind everyone that I lived in the area for over 30 years so I'm not just an outsider giving an opinion. And I recall how many people complained about Orsay.....
I understand the zoning laws and overlays but it is amazing that people are so against this project. I started following this project in November. I attended the meeting on Thursday night because I wanted to understand the issues. The people and groups that opposed this project are vehemently opposed to Roost Cafe.
Quote from: JaxAvondale on January 30, 2016, 03:21:19 PM
Quote from: avonjax on January 30, 2016, 10:17:33 AM
Right or wrong, good or bad Riverside and Avondale get ticked about everything that wants to open. I just love the empty building sitting there. I can't imagine it will ever be anything but empty if this gets squashed. Oh well. Let me remind everyone that I lived in the area for over 30 years so I'm not just an outsider giving an opinion. And I recall how many people complained about Orsay.....
I understand the zoning laws and overlays but it is amazing that people are so against this project. I started following this project in November. I attended the meeting on Thursday night because I wanted to understand the issues. The people and groups that opposed this project are vehemently opposed to Roost Cafe.
Of course they are. They probably wouldn't have shown up if they were only mildly opposed.
I appreciate both sides of the issue - but I can't understand why things have to get so negative. It's perfectly acceptable for reasonable people to have different opinions on a subject.
Quote from: Adam White on January 30, 2016, 03:54:06 PM
Quote from: JaxAvondale on January 30, 2016, 03:21:19 PM
Quote from: avonjax on January 30, 2016, 10:17:33 AM
Right or wrong, good or bad Riverside and Avondale get ticked about everything that wants to open. I just love the empty building sitting there. I can't imagine it will ever be anything but empty if this gets squashed. Oh well. Let me remind everyone that I lived in the area for over 30 years so I'm not just an outsider giving an opinion. And I recall how many people complained about Orsay.....
I understand the zoning laws and overlays but it is amazing that people are so against this project. I started following this project in November. I attended the meeting on Thursday night because I wanted to understand the issues. The people and groups that opposed this project are vehemently opposed to Roost Cafe.
Of course they are. They probably wouldn't have shown up if they were only mildly opposed.
I appreciate both sides of the issue - but I can't understand why things have to get so negative. It's perfectly acceptable for reasonable people to have different opinions on a subject.
Agreed! I wish there was more civility.
It seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Just stop any outside seating at 8pm and tell any people already seated they need to move inside at 9pm.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 01, 2016, 11:17:43 AM
It seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Just send those businesses over to Murray Hill please!
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on February 01, 2016, 12:55:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 01, 2016, 11:17:43 AM
It seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Just send those businesses over to Murray Hill please!
Speaking of which, any update on your plans to open a place there?
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on February 01, 2016, 04:25:04 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on February 01, 2016, 12:55:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 01, 2016, 11:17:43 AM
It seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Just send those businesses over to Murray Hill please!
Speaking of which, any update on your plans to open a place there?
Talking about my plans to open up my own business? Or getting businesses into our vacant units? I don't recall discussing my own business plans here on MJ but no, that is on hiatus for now as my plate (actually the whole table) is very full. But regarding potential businesses opening up...we do have several things in the works. Still negotiating but hopefully will have some news before too long. There are a lot of rumblings about quite a number of businesses on the cusp of getting solidified here in the Edgewood corridor.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on February 01, 2016, 06:16:57 PM
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on February 01, 2016, 04:25:04 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on February 01, 2016, 12:55:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on February 01, 2016, 11:17:43 AM
It seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Just send those businesses over to Murray Hill please!
Speaking of which, any update on your plans to open a place there?
Talking about my plans to open up my own business? Or getting businesses into our vacant units? I don't recall discussing my own business plans here on MJ but no, that is on hiatus for now as my plate (actually the whole table) is very full. But regarding potential businesses opening up...we do have several things in the works. Still negotiating but hopefully will have some news before too long. There are a lot of rumblings about quite a number of businesses on the cusp of getting solidified here in the Edgewood corridor.
I apologize for hijacking this thread because of my personal nosiness, but that being said I understand these things take due diligence, time, and lots of patience even in a burgeoning neighborhood such as Murray Hill.
This idea for the Roost cafe would be great for the Hill. Without knowing that much about the machinations, this seemed like a great idea that filled a void in that neighborhood that area residents embraced at the time. But perhaps because more space became available or the initial reaction to their plans showed enough demand or they need the extra hours to turn enough of a profit to make this possible this turned out as a classic example of "mission creep" and poor communication between business and neighbors.
Regardless, I hope they can work this out. And I hope yours and other future endeavors in Murray Hill can learn lessons from all this.
QuoteIt seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Spoken like a person who does not live in the neighborhood!
Every issue is not a battle, its about quality of life. How would you like a neighbor who lied to you and said, Oh yeah, I was going to have room for 60 people have a nice little cafe for people to enjoy, get everyone excited about the project, cause there is really nothing for a couple blocks, only to be LIED TO and you have to find out from public filings that the douchebag developer wants to make it 150 seats and turn your quiet area of Riverside into an outdoor music park on weekends, clogging the streets, leaving trash, and turning your neighborhood, your investment into a trashy version of what it formerly was?
Are there not enough empty spots in Springfield? Hey, why not get some of the Springfield Zealots after this project, I am sure that Main Street is in need of a replacement after 9th and Main had its hey-day, the Pearl left and the area struggles to grow a commercial base. Is a 150 seat boom box the only thing that Stein can find for that space?
Murray will eventually find that it does not have the infrastructure to handle increased traffic and cars, it already has issues around the 1100 block as cars block the intersection of Mayflower and Edgewood. Edgewood is also a race track between 10 and 17 at times of the day, that will be addressed, you think you want the success now, beware, its a double-edged sword. Ask the people around King Street if they enjoy the new beer district and the new attention to the area....
Quote from: mtraininjax on February 02, 2016, 11:38:42 PM
QuoteIt seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Every issue is not a battle, its about quality of life. How would you like a neighbor who lied to you and said, Oh yeah, I was going to have room for 60 people have a nice little cafe for people to enjoy, get everyone excited about the project, cause there is really nothing for a couple blocks, only to be LIED TO and you have to find out from public filings that the douchebag developer wants to make it 150 seats and turn your quiet area of Riverside into an outdoor music park on weekends, clogging the streets, leaving trash, and turning your neighborhood, your investment into a trashy version of what it formerly was?
I am sympathetic to the plight of the locals. If I still lived there (used to live on Oak by Stockton), I would be opposed. But I think the statement above is over the top and is a great example of how people on both sides of this issue can't seem to discuss it rationally.
Quote from: mtraininjax on February 02, 2016, 11:38:42 PM
Murray will eventually find that it does not have the infrastructure to handle increased traffic and cars, it already has issues around the 1100 block as cars block the intersection of Mayflower and Edgewood. Edgewood is also a race track between 10 and 17 at times of the day, that will be addressed, you think you want the success now, beware, its a double-edged sword. Ask the people around King Street if they enjoy the new beer district and the new attention to the area....
Regardless of how the people in the "beer district" feel about it, their homes have become more desirable if not more valuable because of the increased commercial activity.
Also, it sounds like Edgewood will never have the perfect amount of traffic that you're looking for, so just give up. You're only going to make yourself crazy(er).
Quote from: mtraininjax on February 02, 2016, 11:38:42 PM
QuoteIt seems to be the nature of neighborhood business in Riverside at the moment. Every issue becomes a pitched battle.
Spoken like a person who does not live in the neighborhood!
Every issue is not a battle, its about quality of life. How would you like a neighbor who lied to you and said, Oh yeah, I was going to have room for 60 people have a nice little cafe for people to enjoy, get everyone excited about the project, cause there is really nothing for a couple blocks, only to be LIED TO and you have to find out from public filings that the douchebag developer wants to make it 150 seats and turn your quiet area of Riverside into an outdoor music park on weekends, clogging the streets, leaving trash, and turning your neighborhood, your investment into a trashy version of what it formerly was?
Are there not enough empty spots in Springfield? Hey, why not get some of the Springfield Zealots after this project, I am sure that Main Street is in need of a replacement after 9th and Main had its hey-day, the Pearl left and the area struggles to grow a commercial base. Is a 150 seat boom box the only thing that Stein can find for that space?
Murray will eventually find that it does not have the infrastructure to handle increased traffic and cars, it already has issues around the 1100 block as cars block the intersection of Mayflower and Edgewood. Edgewood is also a race track between 10 and 17 at times of the day, that will be addressed, you think you want the success now, beware, its a double-edged sword. Ask the people around King Street if they enjoy the new beer district and the new attention to the area....
I live in San Marco. And I didn't say anything about this development besides the battleground mentality surrounding it. Thanks for making my point for me.
QuoteYou're only going to make yourself crazy(er).
pot calling the kettle black! lol
QuoteBut I think the statement above is over the top and is a great example of how people on both sides of this issue can't seem to discuss it rationally.
neighbors are not using guns or hangings to discuss the issue, the discussions are quite rational.not sure why you would say that they are not.
QuoteI live in San Marco.
home of the 10 million dollar tear-down, that's preservation for you!?
Quote from: mtraininjax on February 22, 2016, 05:10:26 AM
QuoteBut I think the statement above is over the top and is a great example of how people on both sides of this issue can't seem to discuss it rationally.
neighbors are not using guns or hangings to discuss the issue, the discussions are quite rational.not sure why you would say that they are not.
So, that's your standard for determining whether or not something is rational? Shootings and hangings? I'll reset my expectations accordingly when responding to your comments in the future.
QuoteWhat's next for Riverside's The Roost development
Riverside's The Roost development has raised significant attention – both negative and positive – since being proposed last fall.
Now, the potential 150-seat restaurant, which is planned for the former Deluxe Cleaners building on Oak Street that houses Snap Fitness pending the approval of a planned unit development, will go through a series of public hearings before a City Council vote.
The planning commission will review the development on March 17. If approved, the development will be sent to the Land Use and Development Committee.
A City Council Public Hearing will be held on March 22 at 5 p.m. before the Land Use and Development Committee hears it on April 5.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2016/03/whats-next-for-riversides-the-roost-development.html
Riverside residents protest Roost restaurant plans, citing parking problemsQuoteBy Tiffanie Reynolds Mon, May 2, 2016 @ 7:38 pm
Red balloons lined both sides of Oak Street in Riverside for a block and a half Monday evening, but it didn't lead to a celebration.
About a dozen Riverside residents gathered in front of Snap Fitness and former Deluxe Dry Cleaners and Laundromat in the 2200 block of Oak St. to protest a proposed Planned Unit Development zoning for the Roost restaurant. They held signs saying 'Don't Roost Here" and chanting "This PUD is a dud."
The protest was organized to highlight the impact of parking on surrounding residents if the PUD zoning for the restaurant is approved by City Council.
Travis Orr, who lives a block away, said his home is next to several businesses and in walking distance to Five Points. Parking isn't a problem because he's not in the middle of retail in Five Point. But it wouldn't be the same for residents on Oak Street.
"I'm just at the tail end of it. People park there and then they walk into Five Points and they come back," Orr said Monday. "We don't have a parking lot, which is what this would end up being."
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-05-02/story/riverside-residents-protest-roost-restaurant-plans-citing-parking
It looks like that site and the back lot can be reworked to include far more than the 41 parking spots the article mentions. Snap fitness and the laundromat don't need more than 8 spaces at any given time. I don't think a restaurant is the highest and best use for that site, but reduce the seat count to 100 and let's get this moving.
There were WAY more than a dozen people at the protest, but the reporter chose only to count the ones directly in front of Deluxe and Snap. An honest editing error or an effort to diminish the number of people opposed to the project?
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 03, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
It looks like that site and the back lot can be reworked to include far more than the 41 parking spots the article mentions. Snap fitness and the laundromat don't need more than 8 spaces at any given time. I don't think a restaurant is the highest and best use for that site, but reduce the seat count to 100 and let's get this moving.
If they provide the required 10-foot buffer next to residential uses and landscape the parking lot to code, they can only get 34 or 35 spaces in the lot.
Riverside's The Roost developer talks about backlash, restaurant plansQuoteThe developer of the planned Riverside restaurant that has attracted some heat from residents says he's optimistic about the upcoming zoning showdown.
Ted Stein, one half of the development team for in-the-works restaurant The Roost, said the group organizing the protests, P.R.O.U.D., does not represent the general sentiment.
"We feel the facts are on our side and the crowd does not represent the whole neighborhood," Stein said. "That will be evident."
Stein and business partner JC Demetree have faced pushback since proposing the restaurant in a 5,000 square foot space in the former De Luxe Launderette and Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners. Because the Oak Street shopping plaza, anchored by Snap Fitness, is zoned for commercial, residential and office, the space is going through a planned unit development.
Stein said putting the building into reuse is important, rather than letting the building sit vacant.
"As a young entrepreneur that's getting to know the next generation of Riverside through this process, we need to keep progressing, to fill in abandoned buildings," Stein said.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2016/05/riversides-the-roost-developer-talks-about.html
Did they finalize a date & time to reconvene the meeting?
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 03, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
It looks like that site and the back lot can be reworked to include far more than the 41 parking spots the article mentions. Snap fitness and the laundromat don't need more than 8 spaces at any given time. I don't think a restaurant is the highest and best use for that site, but reduce the seat count to 100 and let's get this moving.
The whole issue, in all these disputes revolves around the sale of the Duval Daemon Alcohol... They can't get a SRX license at that spot for 100 seats, need 150. They can't make money without alcohol sales...
Simple solution would be to eliminate the 150 seat requirement everywhere.. not just specially RAP chosen zones.
Just for my personal knowledge, are there two types of liquor licenses available? I always hear about the issue with restaurants needing 150 seats to qualify to purchase the license. Is there a separate type of license that bar only establishments can obtain (like Rogue or Loft on King St, or Sidecar in San marco for example).
Quote from: dp8541 on May 05, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
Just for my personal knowledge, are there two types of liquor licenses available? I always hear about the issue with restaurants needing 150 seats to qualify to purchase the license. Is there a separate type of license that bar only establishments can obtain (like Rogue or Loft on King St, or Sidecar in San marco for example).
Yes a COP 4 license, which is what true bars and liquor stores have. Which are limited artificially by population, hence there is a monopoly in effect, they trade hands for in excess of $300k when they are available. similar to taxi medallions in rationing. SRX is an accommodation to restaurants, but you have square footage (2,500) and minimum seating requirements (150) and must have total revenues equal 51% food sales and 49% beverage sales. The J Bill introduced after the secret Biscotti's licensing attempt reduces these to 100 seats but only in a few designated areas in 5 points, Avondale etc. Not this strip.
^YES, and the difference is ASTRONOMICAL in price. One is a 4COP and one is a SRX but I never remember which is which.
A Restaraunt that has 150 seats (or 100 Downtown, part of 5 Points, and in the Commercial Character Areas of Riverside/Avondale) and has 51% of their revenue from food can get a different license. This license is about $3k/year.
The "bar" license is hundreds of thousands of dollars up front. So, it makes a difference-that's why they want 150 seats-Oak Street is not a commercial character area.
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 12:33:43 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 03, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
It looks like that site and the back lot can be reworked to include far more than the 41 parking spots the article mentions. Snap fitness and the laundromat don't need more than 8 spaces at any given time. I don't think a restaurant is the highest and best use for that site, but reduce the seat count to 100 and let's get this moving.
The whole issue, in all these disputes revolves around the sale of the Duval Daemon Alcohol... They can't get a SRX license at that spot for 100 seats, need 150. They can't make money without alcohol sales...
Simple solution would be to eliminate the 150 seat requirement everywhere.. not just specially RAP chosen zones.
They aren't RAP chosen-they match the city's zoning in the neighborhood.
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2016, 04:29:27 PM
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 12:33:43 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 03, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
It looks like that site and the back lot can be reworked to include far more than the 41 parking spots the article mentions. Snap fitness and the laundromat don't need more than 8 spaces at any given time. I don't think a restaurant is the highest and best use for that site, but reduce the seat count to 100 and let's get this moving.
The whole issue, in all these disputes revolves around the sale of the Duval Daemon Alcohol... They can't get a SRX license at that spot for 100 seats, need 150. They can't make money without alcohol sales...
Simple solution would be to eliminate the 150 seat requirement everywhere.. not just specially RAP chosen zones.
They aren't RAP chosen-they match the city's zoning in the neighborhood.
I believe it does not match one for one.
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 04:27:23 PM
Quote from: dp8541 on May 05, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
Just for my personal knowledge, are there two types of liquor licenses available? I always hear about the issue with restaurants needing 150 seats to qualify to purchase the license. Is there a separate type of license that bar only establishments can obtain (like Rogue or Loft on King St, or Sidecar in San marco for example).
Yes a COP 4 license, which is what true bars and liquor stores have. Which are limited artificially by population, hence there is a monopoly in effect, they trade hands for in excess of $300k when they are available. similar to taxi medallions in rationing. SRX is an accommodation to restaurants, but you have square footage (2,500) and minimum seating requirements (150) and must have total revenues equal 51% food sales and 49% beverage sales. The J Bill introduced after the secret Biscotti's licensing attempt reduces these to 100 seats but only in a few designated areas in 5 points, Avondale etc. Not this strip.
Thanks!
Quote from: dp8541 on May 05, 2016, 04:47:44 PM
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 04:27:23 PM
Quote from: dp8541 on May 05, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
Just for my personal knowledge, are there two types of liquor licenses available? I always hear about the issue with restaurants needing 150 seats to qualify to purchase the license. Is there a separate type of license that bar only establishments can obtain (like Rogue or Loft on King St, or Sidecar in San marco for example).
Yes a COP 4 license, which is what true bars and liquor stores have. Which are limited artificially by population, hence there is a monopoly in effect, they trade hands for in excess of $300k when they are available. similar to taxi medallions in rationing. SRX is an accommodation to restaurants, but you have square footage (2,500) and minimum seating requirements (150) and must have total revenues equal 51% food sales and 49% beverage sales. The J Bill introduced after the secret Biscotti's licensing attempt reduces these to 100 seats but only in a few designated areas in 5 points, Avondale etc. Not this strip.
Thanks!
This strip is eligible for an exception allowing a 60 seat restaurant. In NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, San Francisco etc... there are hundreds of sub 60 seat restaurants... A 60 seater could make money in that spot WITH alchohol sales.
But Jax hates alcohol sales... so they create massive disincentives for people to come in and start businesses while reusing existing spaces... forcing gigantic renovations, knock downs, new structures instead. which increases capital costs and return rate requirements and risk...
When was the last time you were in Mello or Mojo at 10PM and couldn't get a seat? Large empty spaces...
So what happened at the council hearing?
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 04:40:54 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2016, 04:29:27 PM
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 12:33:43 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 03, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
It looks like that site and the back lot can be reworked to include far more than the 41 parking spots the article mentions. Snap fitness and the laundromat don't need more than 8 spaces at any given time. I don't think a restaurant is the highest and best use for that site, but reduce the seat count to 100 and let's get this moving.
The whole issue, in all these disputes revolves around the sale of the Duval Daemon Alcohol... They can't get a SRX license at that spot for 100 seats, need 150. They can't make money without alcohol sales...
Simple solution would be to eliminate the 150 seat requirement everywhere.. not just specially RAP chosen zones.
They aren't RAP chosen-they match the city's zoning in the neighborhood.
I believe it does not match one for one.
It does. The J-Bill specifically passed by Council that went to the State matched it identically. That was the intent.
The J-Bill was written before the concept of Roost even was announced.
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 04:53:35 PM
Quote from: dp8541 on May 05, 2016, 04:47:44 PM
Quote from: Sentient on May 05, 2016, 04:27:23 PM
Quote from: dp8541 on May 05, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
Just for my personal knowledge, are there two types of liquor licenses available? I always hear about the issue with restaurants needing 150 seats to qualify to purchase the license. Is there a separate type of license that bar only establishments can obtain (like Rogue or Loft on King St, or Sidecar in San marco for example).
Yes a COP 4 license, which is what true bars and liquor stores have. Which are limited artificially by population, hence there is a monopoly in effect, they trade hands for in excess of $300k when they are available. similar to taxi medallions in rationing. SRX is an accommodation to restaurants, but you have square footage (2,500) and minimum seating requirements (150) and must have total revenues equal 51% food sales and 49% beverage sales. The J Bill introduced after the secret Biscotti's licensing attempt reduces these to 100 seats but only in a few designated areas in 5 points, Avondale etc. Not this strip.
Thanks!
This strip is eligible for an exception allowing a 60 seat restaurant. In NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, San Francisco etc... there are hundreds of sub 60 seat restaurants... A 60 seater could make money in that spot WITH alchohol sales.
But Jax hates alcohol sales... so they create massive disincentives for people to come in and start businesses while reusing existing spaces... forcing gigantic renovations, knock downs, new structures instead. which increases capital costs and return rate requirements and risk...
When was the last time you were in Mello or Mojo at 10PM and couldn't get a seat? Large empty spaces...
To be clear for people on the forum (though if you know 4COP and SRX you are probably aware), it's spirits. Beer and wine does not have the 150 seat rule.
Putting that aside, I don't disagree. The whole state law is written around Restaraunt's the size of a typically Applebee's or Chili's, not for independent Restaraunts. Personally, I'd be fine with getting rid of the 150 or 100 seat rule and retaining the 51% rule.
One follow up question - is a restaurant required to use only the SFX license, or would a restaurant which did not meet the minimum seat or square footage requirement have the option to purchase an existing 4COP (if they could find and afford one)?
So then yes? For example, any zoning issues aside, would a 90 seat restaurant/bar be permitted to purchase and operate under a 4COP license?
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2016, 03:35:10 PM
There were WAY more than a dozen people at the protest, but the reporter chose only to count the ones directly in front of Deluxe and Snap. An honest editing error or an effort to diminish the number of people opposed to the project?
No matter. The only 'ones' that matters are those with 'standing' and propensity, financial resources to defend against ungainly,inappropriate land use & rezone request.
And that's all it is,a re-zone request placed at the feet of the public's government.No guarantee or assumed "right" can be assumed on the Applicants' part other than the right to submit Request.
Same attorney for Applicant as Mellow Mushroom,St. Johns Village might be more interesting subject heading. No matter what.
8)
The zoning committee approved the application for the PUD.
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=547534
Article reprints available.
Find out more. Facebook Twitter
-
City Council member Jim Love
Zoning committee approves The Roost; full council next step for controversial Riverside restaurant
Tuesday, May 10, 11:12 AM EDT
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
The Roost is still cooking.
After 14 hours of debate, examinations, cross-examinations and other practices found in a courtroom, the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee by a 5-2 vote Monday approved a zoning change for the planned Riverside restaurant.
Developers Tim Stein and J.C. Demetree plan to convert the former Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners and De Luxe Launderette sites on Oak Street into a 150-seat diner and coffee bar that sells alcohol.
Doing so requires the zoning change in the historic residential area, which has been opposed by some residents.
Some have been willing to back a scaled-down restaurant that seats 60, but the developers are set on 150 — the amount needed to have a liquor license for the restaurant.
While those negotiations went nowhere, there was some compromise Monday.
The Roost sought outdoor service for its dinner crowds but agreed to limit outdoor hours to 5 p.m. The change would help potential noise concerns for neighbors.
While the majority of committee members ended up supporting the zoning change, its district representative did not.
Jim Love said given the residential character of the street and the overlay, he couldn't support the plan. He said he wants the developers to succeed as entrepreneurs, just in a different spot.
"This location is not the right place," he said. "The overlay rule is a rule to be followed ... not run roughshod over."
He compared it to past zoning disputes, although those situations had a compromise in the end that didn't require a special hearing like the one that has taken place in the past week.
The other opposing vote came from Lori Boyer, who continuously questioned staff on the Planned Unit Development process in relation to how it can be applied to existing overlays.
While she liked the concept of the restaurant, she said the people in that area voted for its historic nature and such an establishment would increase the intensity of the entire street.
Most of those in support sympathized with Love, but backed the restaurant for various reasons.
Danny Becton said the buildings had been vacant for more than a decade and would require a business that can "make some serious money" to be sustainable. Turning it down might mean another decade sitting empty.
"If it's not this, then what's it going to be?" he asked.
Aaron Bowman said despite the road having residences, it can't be classified as residential. And with the city's fight against blight in neighborhoods, this was an opportunity.
Like most court cases, the two sides walked away with opposite reactions after the vote.
"I think that Jim Love listened to the people ... I think Lori Boyer knows the law," said Jennifer Wolfe, a nearby resident and member of the Positive Riverside Optimized Urban Development group, known as PROUD.
Wolfe said the decision doesn't support the area's overlay or the city's comprehensive plan and that "the people were not heard" in the matter.
Stein, the developer, said he was happy with the decision after the long debate and the group compromised on many issues.
Once the restaurant is done, he said the first objective would be to "work tirelessly to prove to the neighborhood we will be great neighbors."
While the committee vote is a step in that direction, it still has a few more before work can begin.
The final vote will be at the May 24 full council meeting. It was initially pegged for tonight, but the turnaround for members to review evidence would not have allowed enough time.
That decision likely won't be the final one, either.
For zoning issues like The Roost, the losing side is able to appeal to Circuit Court.
Wolfe said the arguments made during the special hearing make an "excellent case in court" and there would be an appeal should council follow the committee's direction.
Stein and Demetree declined comment as to whether they would appeal if council votes against them.
dchapman@jaxdailyrecord.com
@writerchapman
(904) 356-2466
Its too bad Danny Becton doesn't believe in Historic Neighborhood values, after all the District 11 councilman represents sprawl and "progress" on the Southside of Jax. And Bowman co-sponsored the LGBT HRO bill back in January, some friend he is to the district and its residents.
I'm extremely excited about this going forward.
I believe it will fit perfectly in the neighborhood.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 12, 2016, 05:27:59 AM
And Bowman co-sponsored the LGBT HRO bill back in January, some friend he is to the district and its residents.
Yeah, the LBGT population in Riverside/Avondale is zero. For sure, nobody over there cares about discrimination. Excellent point.
And incredibly relevant.
Kudos.
I still see both sides on this one. That said I personally am excited about another lunch option in the area.
Yeah, I think that fighting this is dumb. It is just another Mellow Mushroom situation. Once it is up and running no one will even notice it's there except when they want to grab something to eat or drink and they can walk only a few blocks. Old people need to get over it. The NIMBY attitudes in Riverside are crazy.
With what happened in Atlantic Beach with the residents protesting the Gate station and the City going ahead anyway and allowing Gate to proceed, the City will do the same thing with the Roost. The residents, overlay be damned, will get screwed in the end.
a portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
What exactly is the Planning Committee and who are these morons you speak of?
QuoteWhat exactly is the Planning Committee and who are these morons you speak of?
Check the previous posts and stories....they are there and were quoted in the Planning meetings...
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:57:41 AM
QuoteWhat exactly is the Planning Committee and who are these morons you speak of?
Check the previous posts and stories....they are there and were quoted in the Planning meetings...
Seriously TUFSU!!! Educate yourself! Gosh!!!!
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:17:30 AM
With what happened in Atlantic Beach with the residents protesting the Gate station and the City going ahead anyway and allowing Gate to proceed, the City will do the same thing with the Roost. The residents, overlay be damned, will get screwed in the end.
Going ahead and allowing? You mean the City agreed that Gate's proposed development satisfied zoning and building requirements. Or, are you suggesting that the City should agree with local residents regardless of the zoning designation of a particular property?
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Can't wait until this place opens up! Just like Mellow Mushroom, everyone will realize it's no big deal when it is finally running. Especially since every neighbor isn't against it. NIMBYs be damned!
Quote from: UNFurbanist on May 18, 2016, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Can't wait until this place opens up! Just like Mellow Mushroom, everyone will realize it's no big deal when it is finally running. Especially since every neighbor isn't against it. NIMBYs be damned!
I used to live across from that site - a few doors down, though. I wouldn't want a restaurant there. I't different in many ways from Mellow Mushroom because it's surrounded in houses. But whatever. It's easy to moan about "NIMBYs" when you only benefit and are not negatively impacted.
Yeah. But if it is good I bet many of the same people complaining will be walking across the street to go and will brag to their friends about their proximity ;)
I suppose. I mainly posted that facetiously. However, I'll be moving into a place just down the street soon so I see this as a great opportunity to easily get food and beer within a short walk.
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 18, 2016, 03:34:02 PM
Yeah. But if it is good I bet many of the same people complaining will be walking across the street to go and will brag to their friends about their proximity ;)
True. Hopefully it will work out where it isn't a disruption for the residents. They'd probably be really happy if it did - the opposition probably stems from a worry that it will be noisy and they won't be able to do anything about it. They probably don't believe the developers and I can't say I blame them.
Quote from: Adam White on May 18, 2016, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: UNFurbanist on May 18, 2016, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Can't wait until this place opens up! Just like Mellow Mushroom, everyone will realize it's no big deal when it is finally running. Especially since every neighbor isn't against it. NIMBYs be damned!
I used to live across from that site - a few doors down, though. I wouldn't want a restaurant there. I't different in many ways from Mellow Mushroom because it's surrounded in houses. But whatever. It's easy to moan about "NIMBYs" when you only benefit and are not negatively impacted.
It's very different than MM. MM was in a commercial building surrounded by other commercial buildings in a historically commercial corridor.
Roost is in a commercial building surrounded by residential buildings in a historically residential corridor. The idea here was small scale commercial uses when this thing was built.
I live near here and no, I'm not going to be a martyr and not go in there - if it's good I'll go. It's sort of like when the elected President isn't the guy you voted for - he's still the President and we should all support him.
I do think it's frustrating that both Love and Boyer (district CM and most similar district CM) voted against it, and the suburban CMs voted for it. I'm a fan of consolidation, but this is an example of one of the drawbacks. This is a scenario that Baymeadows and 295 would never deal with it.
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2016, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: Adam White on May 18, 2016, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: UNFurbanist on May 18, 2016, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Can't wait until this place opens up! Just like Mellow Mushroom, everyone will realize it's no big deal when it is finally running. Especially since every neighbor isn't against it. NIMBYs be damned!
I used to live across from that site - a few doors down, though. I wouldn't want a restaurant there. I't different in many ways from Mellow Mushroom because it's surrounded in houses. But whatever. It's easy to moan about "NIMBYs" when you only benefit and are not negatively impacted.
It's very different than MM. MM was in a commercial building surrounded by other commercial buildings in a historically commercial corridor.
Roost is in a commercial building surrounded by residential buildings in a historically residential corridor. The idea here was small scale commercial uses when this thing was built.
I live near here and no, I'm not going to be a martyr and not go in there - if it's good I'll go. It's sort of like when the elected President isn't the guy you voted for - he's still the President and we should all support him.
I do think it's frustrating that both Love and Boyer (district CM and most similar district CM) voted against it, and the suburban CMs voted for it. I'm a fan of consolidation, but this is an example of one of the drawbacks. This is a scenario that Baymeadows and 295 would never deal with it.
Another thing about MM was that a lot of the opposition (if I recall correctly) was either from other merchants who were worried about competition or from resident snobs who thought MM was too "down market" for the Shoppes at Avondale or whatever the hell it was called.
I can appreciate people have concerns about quality of life issues. I hope it works out, because if it does it will be a great addition to the area.
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2016, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: Adam White on May 18, 2016, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: UNFurbanist on May 18, 2016, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Can't wait until this place opens up! Just like Mellow Mushroom, everyone will realize it's no big deal when it is finally running. Especially since every neighbor isn't against it. NIMBYs be damned!
I used to live across from that site - a few doors down, though. I wouldn't want a restaurant there. I't different in many ways from Mellow Mushroom because it's surrounded in houses. But whatever. It's easy to moan about "NIMBYs" when you only benefit and are not negatively impacted.
It's very different than MM. MM was in a commercial building surrounded by other commercial buildings in a historically commercial corridor.
Roost is in a commercial building surrounded by residential buildings in a historically residential corridor. The idea here was small scale commercial uses when this thing was built.
I live near here and no, I'm not going to be a martyr and not go in there - if it's good I'll go. It's sort of like when the elected President isn't the guy you voted for - he's still the President and we should all support him.
I do think it's frustrating that both Love and Boyer (district CM and most similar district CM) voted against it, and the suburban CMs voted for it. I'm a fan of consolidation, but this is an example of one of the drawbacks. This is a scenario that Baymeadows and 295 would never deal with it.
I like your take on this, that you would not boycott the establishment just because you may have opposed its location. I do think that both Love and Boyer may have had political reasons for not supporting this (RAP).
Also, the parking issues in Avondale are because there is a huge strip of restaurants and stores with not much parking. The same can be said of King St. where there is no parking but a lot of places, especially on a Saturday night. This is one place that is a restaurant. Most week nights it will not be busy. There will be some additional parking on the street but that is why residents have driveways. This is not Rogue and Loft, it's a restaurant that will be empty by 10 pm on Wednesday. I get the concerns, but this is much to do about nothing.
Quote from: dp8541 on May 18, 2016, 04:20:00 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2016, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: Adam White on May 18, 2016, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: UNFurbanist on May 18, 2016, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Can't wait until this place opens up! Just like Mellow Mushroom, everyone will realize it's no big deal when it is finally running. Especially since every neighbor isn't against it. NIMBYs be damned!
I used to live across from that site - a few doors down, though. I wouldn't want a restaurant there. I't different in many ways from Mellow Mushroom because it's surrounded in houses. But whatever. It's easy to moan about "NIMBYs" when you only benefit and are not negatively impacted.
It's very different than MM. MM was in a commercial building surrounded by other commercial buildings in a historically commercial corridor.
Roost is in a commercial building surrounded by residential buildings in a historically residential corridor. The idea here was small scale commercial uses when this thing was built.
I live near here and no, I'm not going to be a martyr and not go in there - if it's good I'll go. It's sort of like when the elected President isn't the guy you voted for - he's still the President and we should all support him.
I do think it's frustrating that both Love and Boyer (district CM and most similar district CM) voted against it, and the suburban CMs voted for it. I'm a fan of consolidation, but this is an example of one of the drawbacks. This is a scenario that Baymeadows and 295 would never deal with it.
I like your take on this, that you would not boycott the establishment just because you may have opposed its location. I do think that both Love and Boyer may have had political reasons for not supporting this (RAP).
Love and Boyer had LEGAL reasons for not supporting it.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 18, 2016, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:57:41 AM
QuoteWhat exactly is the Planning Committee and who are these morons you speak of?
Check the previous posts and stories....they are there and were quoted in the Planning meetings...
Seriously TUFSU!!! Educate yourself! Gosh!!!!
my bad....I was confused....thought maybe Mtrain was referring to the Planning Commission or City Council's Land Use & Zoning Committee....my uneducated self was not aware Jacksonville had a Planning Committee
Quote from: FlaBoy on May 18, 2016, 07:08:56 PMThis is not Rogue and Loft, it's a restaurant that will be empty by 10 pm on Wednesday.
Here's the thing - the zoning change is on the dirt, not directly with the business owner. If someone wants to change the concept to something else that fits into whatever is zoned, they are free to do so.
This is why when developers/business owners make the emotional plea of a nice business that's going to be community friendly it's just that - emotion. Maybe they are going to be community friendly. But, what if they close in three years and someone who isn't so community friendly moves in?
Quote from: jlmann on May 18, 2016, 05:01:34 PM
Why did these people even buy in Riverside? Even 20 yrs ago? Ain't nobody got time for these folks. People are actually trying to invest and improve the hood. Move along!
I think that I would be fine with this if I lived next door. However, I completely understand the push back. There are actually folks who love living in Riverside and do not want to be in Oakleaf, but also don't want to be next door to a high impact business. For people buying property next door, they should indeed have to accept a less invasive business in the buildings as originally intended. To say they have no right to fight against a full-liquor restaurant is not accurate.
Anyway, having spoken with some pretty unbiased and very rational folks who are more knowledgeable of the situation, there is indeed a difference between Mellow in Avondale and the Roost here. And as I said, I am happy with it proceeding. I do think it's for the greater good and I would be fine if I was a neighbor.
Quote from: dp8541 on May 18, 2016, 04:20:00 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2016, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: Adam White on May 18, 2016, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: UNFurbanist on May 18, 2016, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 18, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
Quotea portion of the residents may perceive they will have been "screwed"
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked with morons who live on the Southside behind gated communities chose to ignore their fellow councilman and the neighborhood community.
The little man be damned here in Jax. The homeowner cannot change out a window without RAP approval, but a developer can run roughshod over the community with a bit of money. I hope they choke on the product they put out, America for sale to the highest bidder.
Can't wait until this place opens up! Just like Mellow Mushroom, everyone will realize it's no big deal when it is finally running. Especially since every neighbor isn't against it. NIMBYs be damned!
I used to live across from that site - a few doors down, though. I wouldn't want a restaurant there. I't different in many ways from Mellow Mushroom because it's surrounded in houses. But whatever. It's easy to moan about "NIMBYs" when you only benefit and are not negatively impacted.
It's very different than MM. MM was in a commercial building surrounded by other commercial buildings in a historically commercial corridor.
Roost is in a commercial building surrounded by residential buildings in a historically residential corridor. The idea here was small scale commercial uses when this thing was built.
I live near here and no, I'm not going to be a martyr and not go in there - if it's good I'll go. It's sort of like when the elected President isn't the guy you voted for - he's still the President and we should all support him.
I do think it's frustrating that both Love and Boyer (district CM and most similar district CM) voted against it, and the suburban CMs voted for it. I'm a fan of consolidation, but this is an example of one of the drawbacks. This is a scenario that Baymeadows and 295 would never deal with it.
I like your take on this, that you would not boycott the establishment just because you may have opposed its location. I do think that both Love and Boyer may have had political reasons for not supporting this (RAP).
I agree with you. I'm for the project but if I were in the same position as Love then I would have voted against it.
QuoteI do think it's frustrating that both Love and Boyer (district CM and most similar district CM) voted against it, and the suburban CMs voted for it. I'm a fan of consolidation, but this is an example of one of the drawbacks. This is a scenario that Baymeadows and 295 would never deal with it.
Without getting too caught up in the correct Planning terminology by people more interested in political correctness than how it affects a neighborhood, this was my entire point. The City and Atlantic Beach not listening to the people who live in the area, not about parking or paint colors, but about what THEY want in their neighborhood. They live there and to have a group of 5-2 decide that the residents don't know enough about what they want in their neighborhood is disheartening.
In this case, the City Councilman voted against it, the Neighborhood Preservation recommended against it, but those not affected by the change decided to vote for it. This shows me that even though Jim is a good guy, he has less sway and power with others in City Council. Same goes for Boyer. There used to be a time in the Council that if your fellow Council voted against an issue, others in the committee would do the same. Those days are gone.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 20, 2016, 05:16:19 AM
The City and Atlantic Beach not listening to the people who live in the area, not about parking or paint colors, but about what THEY want in their neighborhood. They live there and to have a group of 5-2 decide that the residents don't know enough about what they want in their neighborhood is disheartening.
You don't understand land use regulation and property rights.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 20, 2016, 05:16:19 AM
QuoteI do think it's frustrating that both Love and Boyer (district CM and most similar district CM) voted against it, and the suburban CMs voted for it. I'm a fan of consolidation, but this is an example of one of the drawbacks. This is a scenario that Baymeadows and 295 would never deal with it.
In this case, the City Councilman voted against it, the Neighborhood Preservation recommended against it, but those not affected by the change decided to vote for it. This shows me that even though Jim is a good guy, he has less sway and power with others in City Council. Same goes for Boyer. There used to be a time in the Council that if your fellow Council voted against an issue, others in the committee would do the same. Those days are gone.
I tend to think that he was for the project in a general sense. If he were truly against it then I think the voting would have been more reflective of any real opposition.
I just have a hard time beleving that someone with a business very close to Kickbacks and other residential homes would be total against the project. (Zoning aside)
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 20, 2016, 09:49:58 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 20, 2016, 05:16:19 AM
The City and Atlantic Beach not listening to the people who live in the area, not about parking or paint colors, but about what THEY want in their neighborhood. They live there and to have a group of 5-2 decide that the residents don't know enough about what they want in their neighborhood is disheartening.
You don't understand land use regulation and property rights.
Not to mention a complete lack of understanding of how representative democracies work.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 20, 2016, 05:16:19 AM
Without getting too caught up in the correct Planning terminology by people more interested in political correctness than how it affects a neighborhood, this was my entire point. The City and Atlantic Beach not listening to the people who live in the area, not about parking or paint colors, but about what THEY want in their neighborhood. They live there and to have a group of 5-2 decide that the residents don't know enough about what they want in their neighborhood is disheartening.
People living in the neighborhoods aren't usually impartial. Many zoning & land use decisions are in fact made in quasi-judicial hearings. The outcomes can be legally challenged and one better have solid backing of the law to support the decision made.
QuotePeople living in the neighborhoods aren't usually impartial. Many zoning & land use decisions are in fact made in quasi-judicial hearings. The outcomes can be legally challenged and one better have solid backing of the law to support the decision made.
Wow, just wow!
QuoteYou don't understand land use regulation and property rights.
Seeing as how you are an expert, why don't you pontificate "land use regulation and property rights" to the delight of all on the board. I want to be dazzled by the smartest people in the room.
Quoteunderstanding of how representative democracies work.
Its really quite simple, there are the "haves" and the "have nots". the haves have very nice lobbyists and the have nots get screwed by the haves, should I go on????
^ I will save the pontificating for the Florida Bar....here's a nice summary in case you're interested in learning something
https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/F5933C5B28EAC56D8525769B0066BC77
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 21, 2016, 09:39:42 AM
Its really quite simple, there are the "haves" and the "have nots". the haves have very nice lobbyists and the have nots get screwed by the haves, should I go on????
Would you characterize "We Love Avondale" as the have nots?
Seeing as how you are an expert, why don't you pontificate "land use regulation and property rights" to the delight of all on the board. I want to be dazzled by the smartest people in the room.
I would settle for not constantly hearing from the dumbest person in the room.
What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked I do think that both Love and Boyer may have had political reasons for not supporting this (RAP).
[/quote]
Beyond pure politics. Jim Love knows that RAP could successfully appeal/oppose inappropriate city council decision via credible "Standing" and knowledge of and propensity to defend existing Overlay et al legal directive in the face of what is only,legally,a developer "Request".
This was the case with Mellow Mushroom/We Love Avondale and St Johns Village/Arden LLC. Relatively unlimited $$$ backing behind commitment to credible appeal.
City Council does not want to usher a "Train Wreck",approving applicant request only to have the process go to Appeal and have Citizen opposition upheld. After all,that would really be a negative for "Development" 8)
Roost Cafe Applicant Attorney representative Steve Diebenow also represented Mellow Mushroom and St. Johns Village. For the longest time,some on the 'opposition' side were quite pleased with this attorney I heard described as "dull tack". But bringing one substantial deviation request after another could result in an eventual "win"...Precedence!
The "Roost" request might be,true to Title......more organic,there might not be the citizen monetary resources or other attributes present in recent past Requests,the heavy lifting might fall more on the shoulders of RAP.
Folks complain that three minutes at the public hearing podium ain't enough to recite entreaty- in fact,for a citizen with clear intent to position for possible effective appeal,establish Standing,three minutes is more than enough.
When you are in know you can spot 'em.
Quote from: bill on May 22, 2016, 08:56:36 AM
Seeing as how you are an expert, why don't you pontificate "land use regulation and property rights" to the delight of all on the board. I want to be dazzled by the smartest people in the room.
I would settle for not constantly hearing from the dumbest person in the room.
^for the win
QuoteStanding,three minutes is more than enough.
Good idea, perhaps a time limit on the grand standing out here as well.
Probably will not happen now that the Neighbors and PROUD got royally screwed....
http://www.news4jax.com/news/city-council-approves-rezoning-for-riverside-restaurant (http://www.news4jax.com/news/city-council-approves-rezoning-for-riverside-restaurant)
QuoteHere's the thing - the zoning change is on the dirt, not directly with the business owner.
I think this is the one objection to this thing that really merits soul-searching. It is not a good precedent.
But this should include designating Oak street as "residential character" in the Overlay in the first place when it is was a historically a streetcar corridor (complete w/ some of the best examples of mixed use architecture w/in hundreds of miles), subsequently zoned in such a way as to encourage non-residential uses and now primarily NOT residential in character.
Isn't this the seed from which the bad precedent has grown?
Quote from: bencrix on May 25, 2016, 08:18:40 AM
QuoteHere's the thing - the zoning change is on the dirt, not directly with the business owner.
I think this is the one objection to this thing that really merits soul-searching. It is not a good precedent.
But this should include designating Oak street as "residential character" in the Overlay in the first place when it is was a historically a streetcar corridor (complete w/ some of the best examples of mixed use architecture w/in hundreds of miles), subsequently zoned in such a way as to encourage non-residential uses and now primarily NOT residential in character.
Isn't this the seed from which the bad precedent has grown?
The part of Oak St., this block included, that is designated residential character is at least 65% residential. The office, as well as the very limited retail, exist in harmony with the residential. The gym and the incoming restaurant intensify this area which is unfair to the people who live there.
Does 65% residential along a former streetcar corridor constitute residential character? Why? How do the number of vacant / neglected properties (both commercial and residential) along this corridor reflect harmony? The overlay in this regard is flawed and the source of legitimate conflict. The trend is for it to be spot-zoned into irrelevance. I would prefer that the neighborhood begin the long, difficult process of modernizing this admirable, but now out-dated document. A new, common vision for growth management in the area is required to support historic preservation, diversity, sustainability, investment, etc.
I'd say 65% residential constitutes "primarily residential". Historically, the commercial buildings were the only commercial in the corridor. Just because a streetcar ran down the street doesn't mean it's not residential. Many streets that had streetcars, like Ingleside and Aberdeen had streetcars and both were historically (as well as now) residential.
Outside of the commercial building on Oak, the commercial came on to Oak when the city in the late 50's or early 60's zoned nearly all of Riverside as Commercial.
From another thead:
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 16, 2016, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: MusicMan on May 16, 2016, 03:42:32 PM
Nope. No parking
And a million voices were silenced in 4 syllables...
Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
You can make money with a restaurant. The higher quality the food, the smaller your margins.
You can make exponentially better money with a restaurant that serves liquor.
Not only does it allow the chef a little more leeway to be creative in his menu, but it also offers the restaurant a fighting chance to sustain itself past that dreaded 3 year mark.
The majority of these owners don't want large restaurants just to own a large restaurant; They just want to hit the minimum seating threshold to be allowed to sell liquor and make a decent profit.
There are quite a few posters on here who have been banging this drum for a while, but I guess it bears repeating.
A lot of the energy put into fighting these perceived: parking issues, too-large development issues, lack of existing build-out issues, etc... would be put to much better use in fighting the state county* minimums for liquor sales rather than fighting the entrepreneurs who are only trying to meet the threshold of a made-up number that is set too high to be realistically achieved in the majority of re-build work in a neighborhood such as Riverside.
* Correction per another poster
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211406-jacksonville-roost-debate-not-yet (http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211406-jacksonville-roost-debate-not-yet)
QuoteJACKSONVILLE ROOST DEBATE NOT OVER YET
QuoteAttention: Steve Diebenow. More billable hours are headed your way on this Roost issue. But this time, in a different venue.
should be endless summer entertainment!
Just wondering by why is FL pol writing on this? It's really not state news worthy. Neighborhood controversy? Sure. But I feel bad for the people in Tampa or Orlando who are being presented with this meaningless debate. I've thought that about a few different issues coming out of the Jax section of FL pol. Just saying.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on May 26, 2016, 12:14:34 PM
Just wondering by why is FL pol writing on this?
Developers running roughshod with a PUD over a historic district overlay? Sounds political to me and just as relevant in Tampa as it is here.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 26, 2016, 12:06:49 PM
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211406-jacksonville-roost-debate-not-yet (http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211406-jacksonville-roost-debate-not-yet)
QuoteJACKSONVILLE ROOST DEBATE NOT OVER YET
QuoteAttention: Steve Diebenow. More billable hours are headed your way on this Roost issue. But this time, in a different venue.
should be endless summer entertainment!
For a group of "have nots" they seem to be well connected and well capitalized.
The Roost concept reminds me of 5 Spot in the Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle. Now the commercial is more intense, but so is the residential surrounding it.
I don't think Stephen or jlmann are being fair (or accurate).
There are many uses which are already allowed by the zoning which would likely be profitable, especially medical office or multi-family (a much better use for the vacant lots than parking for the restaurant).
The gym was allowed by right under the zoning. If the building owner had made the other improvements that he promised to when the gym opened, there would be much less complaining about it.
The property owner said at the first public meeting that he had never tried to market the property to anyone else, and never looked at any other use.
The rezoning application is what gives the neighbors a chance to make their opinions known. If the property owner had gone with any of the already legal commercial uses, he wouldn't have had to deal with all this.
Back when I worked for the Planning Department, I did see the reverse happen occasionally. Typically it was large industrial users trying to stop land being rezoned to create new subdivisions near them...
QuoteI'd say 65% residential constitutes "primarily residential". Historically, the commercial buildings were the only commercial in the corridor. Just because a streetcar ran down the street doesn't mean it's not residential. Many streets that had streetcars, like Ingleside and Aberdeen had streetcars and both were historically (as well as now) residential.
Steve - I'm not arguing that the corridor is not residential. I'm arguing that is historically and presently mixed use, w/ historical precedent for more intense use (streetcar).
My argument is that the real estate market and development patterns of 2016 (not to mention the need for more sustainable communities) beg a reassessment of the 2008 Overlay. Not for the sole benefit of developers per se, but for the neighborhood as a whole. Otherwise, I think we should get used to controversy & spot-zoning. We know where the conflict areas are. We need a more proactive vision for them.
I think that' s a pretty broad brush jlmann. Also, the building at Lomax and Riverside is a lawyer's office, not medical.
While a lot of doctor's offices are pretty bland, there are some notable exceptions - North Florida Dermatology has one of the few remaining Row mansions on Riverside Ave, which looks amazing.
Medical office also ought to work for these buildings because the buildout is pretty simple - the buildings become just a box that you chop up into smaller rooms. It doesn't require a labor of love...
And medical really benefits from agglomeration.
I do think the owner should make an effort (or at least claim to) to use the property for what it's zoned for before seeking a change... I really don't think that's too much to ask.
Why are you guys getting so personal here? Property owners have a right to weigh in on rezonings. And no property owner has an automatic right to rezone. They have a right to apply for a rezoning.
What is wrong with residents opposing a rezoning to a higher level of intensity where they live?
Where do you live JLMann?
Just an quick FYI:
Saw this:
QuoteThis P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.
Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay". So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".
Quote from: jlmann on May 26, 2016, 06:52:04 PM
where do I live?
Right around tha corna. Owner or part owner of 4 properties in 32204/05 including my primary. Which oh btw borders commercial. And when it gets inevitably developed to a more intense use than current you won't hear me complaining. I knew that full well but was fine with the possibility due to it being a smaller property with limited options. Foresight can be useful when purchasing RE
Admitedly I am making it a bit personal, but the smear and fear tactics that have been deployed, sometimes anonymously, combined with the absolute relentless assault on reason getting me fired up.
Folks on that block of oak need to be called out for the selfish nimby attitude. Sure they have a right to voice concerns. But at some point we have to say, as a neighborhood, what are the options? Wait for this miracle, non-restaurant tenant with an unlimited budget to show, wait for the 150 seat liquor law to get changed, or work with the people willing to invest in the community in a manner that no one else has been willing to do for decades?
The compromise last reached was reasonable. There will always be people negatively affected by such developments. But in this case the very small number who voluntarily live and bought homes within a block of some of the densest commercial in the area should not be allowed to have first right of refusal. It probably will detract from a few homeowners quality of life. No doubt. But you can count them on your hand. This is a win for Riverside and will positively affect the neighborhood as a whole
Do you rent? I didn't find a property you own "around the corner." Park and Forbes is quite a ways away so that this restaurant will not impact you.
Quote from: jlmann on May 26, 2016, 07:08:17 PM
Can't wait to head to roost and on the way read Stephens post inquiring how life is after the roost-apocalypse
When he inquired about the hilariously dubbed pizza apocalypse it was all quiet from we love Avondale. They was up enjoyin pies
Avondale Pizza Apocolypse did not materialize thanks to the fact that We Love Avondale negotiated,tamped down,scaled back Applicant's proposal. (Although personally,I thought a rooftop band with sound attenuation mitigation device would have been cool..... 8) )
Quote from: strider on May 26, 2016, 06:39:29 PM
Just an quick FYI:
Saw this:
QuoteThis P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.
Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay". So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".
The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility. This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.
Quote from: jlmann on May 26, 2016, 09:55:01 PM
I do not rent. See earlier comments. They are 100% factual. Perhaps John L Mann is who I am. Perhaps not. You can make your username anything you like but I see how searching coj could lead you to believe that.
Mann J
If this were a radio show id be a "long time listener, first time caller" thus wise enough to put up a curtain
But to the point Kay- you seem to be suggesting that someone living the vast distance of 2-3 blocks from this development is unqualified or unworthy to offer input? Is that the case?
I sure hope not because by extension you would then be saying that the handful of people living directly around the property should get final say on everything.
Back to your dismissal of park and forbes st residents tho. If you acknowledge people 2-3 blocks away won't even be impacted haven't you've really just made my argument for me?
I think the people directly effected should get primary consideration, yes. It's easy to support something when you will not be directly impacted. And all that commercial intensity around Publix was there before the Overlay was developed (except for Black Sheep). The Overlay is not that old and the conditions not different to say that the Overlay no longer makes sense.
Personally attacking and calling out folks concerned about their quality of life is immature and not cool.
Quote from: Kay on May 27, 2016, 06:32:12 AM
Quote from: strider on May 26, 2016, 06:39:29 PM
Just an quick FYI:
Saw this:
QuoteThis P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.
Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay". So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".
The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility. This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.
what does it matter? The nuts in this neighborhood fight the commercial uses even when they are trying to go into those areas where the overlay incentivizes commercial use.
Quote from: Kay on May 27, 2016, 06:45:54 AM
Quote from: jlmann on May 26, 2016, 09:55:01 PM
I do not rent. See earlier comments. They are 100% factual. Perhaps John L Mann is who I am. Perhaps not. You can make your username anything you like but I see how searching coj could lead you to believe that.
Mann J
If this were a radio show id be a "long time listener, first time caller" thus wise enough to put up a curtain
But to the point Kay- you seem to be suggesting that someone living the vast distance of 2-3 blocks from this development is unqualified or unworthy to offer input? Is that the case?
I sure hope not because by extension you would then be saying that the handful of people living directly around the property should get final say on everything.
Back to your dismissal of park and forbes st residents tho. If you acknowledge people 2-3 blocks away won't even be impacted haven't you've really just made my argument for me?
I think the people directly effected should get primary consideration, yes. It's easy to support something when you will not be directly impacted. And all that commercial intensity around Publix was there before the Overlay was developed (except for Black Sheep). The Overlay is not that old and the conditions not different to say that the Overlay no longer makes sense.
Personally attacking and calling out folks concerned about their quality of life is immature and not cool.
And the City agrees about who is considered affected parties. It is those property owners within 350 feet of the property being rezoned, deviated, etc.
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 27, 2016, 07:51:06 AM
Quote from: Kay on May 27, 2016, 06:32:12 AM
Quote from: strider on May 26, 2016, 06:39:29 PM
Just an quick FYI:
Saw this:
QuoteThis P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.
Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay". So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".
The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility. This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.
what does it matter? The nuts in this neighborhood fight the commercial uses even when they are trying to go into those areas where the overlay incentivizes commercial use.
I hear you Megatron but that is not the case in this situation.
Quote from: Kay on May 27, 2016, 06:32:12 AM
Quote from: strider on May 26, 2016, 06:39:29 PM
Just an quick FYI:
Saw this:
QuoteThis P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.
Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay". So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".
The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility. This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.
My point was that even though the overlay's attempt to restrict incompatible uses within the residential blocks, the residents asked for various types of commercial infill and in the past, supported the applications for PUD"s that, as an example, enabled a property to have a labor pool when labor pools are prohibited, enabled late night music and festivities with single family housing right next door; all of the things being complained about over the roost. On the other side, folks complained when the wrong person asked for the ability to simply do what was allowed by right or exception. This issue of the Roost is not precedent setting and so it is no surprise that a few who complained were not listened to but rather the previous precedents were followed. This PUD is not the overlay killing event some fear it will be. It will not "kill" any of the other overlays even if the Roost proves to be problematic to the community.
The event that can and mostly will hurt if not "kill" the overlays happened a couple of years ago and the DOJ is the agency that will make it happen probably within the next year or so.
QuoteThis PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.
It really isn't a residential area w/ only 65% residential (citing your number). It is a mixed used corridor designed to be served by multi-modal transportation. Thus, it is one of the best areas in the neighborhood for increased density / activity. Particularly if we ever want to increase walkability, provide more transportation choices in our City, and do something about waste & pollution.
We do, don't we?
No one is asking for PUD on Herschel, because that actually is mostly residential, w/ just a few residential structures converted to offices.
The overlay activists must have dreamt of transforming Oak from King to Margaret to a predominantly residential corridor. I'd guess the "Residential Character" designation for that corridor was considered a victory at the time. But it was a blunt instrument and, given that the market has evolved differently, the first cause of the present conflict.
Again, we know the areas where the wisdom of the 2008 overlay conflicts with 2016 realities. I'd prefer a new vision to serial NIMBYism & litigation.
What if instead of feeding lawyers, all that NIMBY investment went towards a revised overlay, a developer's grant fund for partial redevelopment of derelict commerical properties (maybe even new liquor regulations)?
Quote from: stephendare on May 27, 2016, 10:06:23 AM
no one has attacked folks concerned about QOL. But it is equally uncool to libel, slander, lie about and intentionally spread fear, hatred and discontent about commercial landowners who are also concerned with quality of life.
I think the issue here is that two different groups of people can measure quality of life differently. It can mean different things to different people.
I do think Kay (and you) are kind of making the same point and I think it's valid in each case - both sides of the argument probably need to tone down the rhetoric. But people get worked up over stuff they care about, so it's not really unexpected.
Quote from: stephendare on May 26, 2016, 06:50:24 PM
Quote from: Kay on May 26, 2016, 06:33:34 PM
Why are you guys getting so personal here? Property owners have a right to weigh in on rezonings. And no property owner has an automatic right to rezone. They have a right to apply for a rezoning.
What is wrong with residents opposing a rezoning to a higher level of intensity where they live?
Where do you live JLMann?
But they don't have a right to lie, slander, libel and fear monger in the course of disagreeing over zoning. Thats really the issue. People can't stop turning these things into 'any means necessary' mud fights and its why people don't feel like residents groups can be trusted with 'overlays'.
They keep turning them into tax payer funded HOAs.
I have attended a few meetings and the 'any means necessary' fights from the opposition are tiresome.
Quote from: Kay on May 26, 2016, 08:44:44 PM
Park and Forbes is quite a ways away so that this restaurant will not impact you.
And it won't impact many of those who are supporting and funding PROUD's antics. So I'm not sure how jlmann supporting the developer is any different.
QuoteYou bought there. Or you chose to live there. Put on your big boy pants and realize the world around you sometimes changes.
The residents did choose to live there, in fact they were cool with a 60 seat cafe, so was RAP, so was the council member in the district. People were cool with a small cafe, the street had small cafes in the past and supported them before with Judson's down the street at Barrs and Oak and the bakery that moved down to 5-Points. People were COOL the small change that was coming.
Then Roost exploded to 150 seats.....you are darn right everything changed. Capitalism is alive and well, sure Roost needs to make as much as possible, but there, at that location, after the neighborhood was good with the change? I can see the points on both sides.
Just as Valentino compromised, Stein will eventually compromise. Or he can always move to St. Johns Village Center and it has a huge parking lot albeit a hole and fence around the spot the firetruck fell through the pavement, but hey, its ready!
QuoteValentino didn't 'compromise'. We Love Avondale didn't want him opening at all. They lost. Why rewrite the history here? I mean I get it, you should turn lemons into lemonade, but this is a stretch. Its turning lemons into rocket fuel. ;)
Stephen, I know you are not going to like me telling you that you are wrong, but I will.
Valentino - look at the old plans, wanted to build the beer garden and make MM 2 levels. He wanted outside music as well, all were nixed. He wanted some other stuff, but he did get to open, at least I think that the old gas station is gone, so he got his way with some stuff and not others. I show that as compromise. WLA members are still in the neighborhood, Avondale has not been destroyed because of it, in fact, it is thriving.
QuoteIts great that RAP and Love were cool with the idea, but should the handful of truly affected residents being "cool" with something really be the standard?
This ain't the southside or some po-dunk HOA with iron gates at the front of it, if the residents want to get up in arms, all the power to them. Good to see civil disorder, shows that the neighborhood is alive and passionate.
Quote from: stephendare on May 27, 2016, 10:44:05 AM
Valentino didn't 'compromise'. We Love Avondale didn't want him opening at all. They lost. Why rewrite the history here? I mean I get it, you should turn lemons into lemonade, but this is a stretch. Its turning lemons into rocket fuel. ;)
Rather stunning lack of insight, news and information.
Had you been involved with We Love Avondale inner workings you would have been privy to the negotiations and events.
WLA leaders such as Susan Fraser,former Clay County planning director (all the while residing in Avondale..... 8) ) so well versed on Application process,reminded WLA members to not focus on 'like' or 'dislike' of a venue but rather,focus on the mechanics of the application substantial deviation held to the Citizen's Land Use & Zone/Overlay standards.
Not so much a matter of opposing something but rather,defending the Overlay.
WLA enjoyed strong 'standing' and legal position and was poised to effectively Appeal if necessary.I recall one resident announcing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal support if need be.
We said "Know" to 'Growth'. Nothing different than Request for Deviation anywhere else in the region other than the fact that in Avondale,the process faced Citizens that possessed the propensity and ability to knowledgeably engage.
St Johns Village/Arden LLC same.
Quote from: stephendare on May 30, 2016, 01:00:52 PM
yawn
yea....most threads go that route by 18 pages.
No wonder so many involved give MJ a collective Yawn.
"WLA leaders such as Susan Fraser,former Clay County planning director"
So one of the WLA leaders is the person who helped bring us Blanding Blvd and its associated development? Not sure that bolsters the organization's credibility. Yikes. Not exactly progressive planning...or planning at all for that matter.
Quotetrue. if only someone would tell our readers that. The numbers just keep going up.
LOL, you love the free SEO, so don't complain about it!
QuoteAs Roost Restaurants LLC continues working through zoning challenges for its proposed Riverside location, it is moving ahead with plans for a restaurant near San Marco.
The Local is expected to open June 1, said partner Ted Stein.
"We wanted to be as close to the neighborhood as possible. Being a part of the communities we serve is a core belief of ours," he said.
Roost Restaurants applied for permits to renovate space in Shops of Granada at 4578 San Jose Blvd., just off Hendricks Avenue. It is in the Miramar and Granada area.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=549119
Alice in RAPLand
8)
Quote from: Captain Zissou on January 13, 2017, 12:09:13 PM
QuoteAs Roost Restaurants LLC continues working through zoning challenges for its proposed Riverside location, it is moving ahead with plans for a restaurant near San Marco.
The Local is expected to open June 1, said partner Ted Stein.
"We wanted to be as close to the neighborhood as possible. Being a part of the communities we serve is a core belief of ours," he said.
Roost Restaurants applied for permits to renovate space in Shops of Granada at 4578 San Jose Blvd., just off Hendricks Avenue. It is in the Miramar and Granada area.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=549119
SNAP fitness sent an e-mail to members on January 9 stating they are implementing an enhancement fee with the following: "we have the approval to expand into next door to add 2000 more square feet to our current facility. This fee will help pay for new equipment and help replace some equipment in our existing that may need a facelift."
Only space next door to SNAP would be the proposed Roost space?
Update:
QuoteStein and Demetree have been battling with area residents near The Roost's proposed location at 2216 Oak St., the site of the former Deluxe Laundry and Dry Cleaners, since they first filed a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application with the city in October 2015.
Residents are concerned about additional traffic and parking issues The Roost would bring.
On May 3, Stein said the judge threw out a resident's appeal for The Roost, so he and Demetree have to wait 30 days to see if that resident will file another appeal.
"If they don't appeal, we'll move on," Demetree said.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/business/food-and-dining/entertainment/2017-05-05/owners-roost-open-another-new-restaurant-summer
It is terrible how long this project has been delayed.
Via @thelocaljax instagram: they will be opening on July 5th!
^The space opening on July 5th is the one on San Jose, not the Oak Street site.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 24, 2017, 04:38:41 PM
^The space opening on July 5th is the one on San Jose, not the Oak Street site.
Yes, indeed. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.
Just got back from the a soft opening at the Local and was really impressed with both the food and the space. Everything was delicious and the location really fills a need for a family friendly, locally owned place to grab a bite. I'll be back.