Riverside's Toxic New Zoning Overlay Proposal
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Neighborhoods/Jim-Loves-New-Zoning-Overlay/i-JFB7pcJ/0/L/newoverlaymap-L.jpg)
If passed by City Council, this new overlay will effectively end the growth of Riverside Avondale as a walkable vibrant urban neighborhood. With draconian measures calling for the closure of all new restaurants at 8pm, provisions making it illegal to sell food to go, and limiting all future restaurants to 60 seats within the Historic 'Residential Character' Areas. Here, for consideration is the proposed new map and ordinance.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-oct-riversides-toxic-new-zoning-overlay-proposal (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-oct-riversides-toxic-new-zoning-overlay-proposal)
Is this another April Fool's joke?
Is there a way to enlarge the map? I can't tell where boundaries are.
Zero steps forward, 2 steps back
Here is the large map from Exhibit 1 of the COJ site.
http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2016-0580/Original%20Text/2016-580%20Exhibit%201.pdf (http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2016-0580/Original%20Text/2016-580%20Exhibit%201.pdf)
This is almost unbelievable.
Thank for the larger map. :)
If only you non-Riversiders could see the in-fighting that takes place on the Nextdoor website. If you live within Riverside and are curious feel free to sign up here: https://nextdoor.com/invite/scbvvfpmrfmqyhgqqmhe (https://nextdoor.com/invite/scbvvfpmrfmqyhgqqmhe) The "get off my lawns" are digging in their heels big time and wouldn't be sad if every restaurant and bar within Riverside closed. That's pretty much their goal. The Roost debate got vicious and there's zero love or appreciation for what Five Points and King Street has done for the area. Granted there are problems but their solution is to zone it out of existence. This is just the first step.
Two of the Roost threads on NextDoor that I remembered started off as people who were against the Roost but it ended with more people being for the new establishment than against it. However, you are correct that the conversation can get very contentious.
Please make sure that when this bill comes up in committees (and if it makes it to council), you come and speak against it. That is the only way to make your thoughts known. You can bet the supporters will be there.
MJ is a great board with diverse opinions, but its target audience is different than those who cast the votes.
Quote from: dbjax on October 17, 2016, 06:04:37 PM
Please make sure that when this bill comes up in committees (and if it makes it to council), you come and speak against it. That is the only way to make your thoughts known. You can bet the supporters will be there.
MJ is a great board with diverse opinions, but its target audience is different than those who cast the votes.
I can't be there (currently living in DC) but am drafting an email to the council now. If this passes I will strongly reconsider my plans to make improvements to my properties in Riverside and certainly decide against putting any further money into the community beyond what is legally required. Also bringing this matter to the attention of many of my friends still in the area as they purchased under the apparently false pretense that Riverside-Avondale would continue being a fun and exciting place to live. I certainly know who I won't be voting for in the next municipal election cycle.
First comment to my FB post: "Well the good news is that Jacksonville is an awful s***hole where nobody should want to live. There's always literally anywhere else? And I say that from Memphis!"
Thanks Jim Love for ensuring Jacksonville remains a joke.
I don't know about this City. I want to stay here after my kids get out of high school but everyday this City makes it harder to stay. This is like implementing arrested-decay, which is great for historical sites but not so great for having to live in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrested_decay
I'd like to write in too. Where can I find an address so that it reaches the appropriate people?
Please keep us informed!
I'll drive over from Tallahassee if this makes it to a public hearing. This needs to be covered by all the local media. Killing Riverside could create a brain drain like this city has never seen before. Recent graduates like my wife and I are moving to Jacksonville because of the development in areas like Riverside. If you take that away, educated 20 somethings would have one less reason to move to Jacksonville.
If the old folks want to live in a boring neighborhood with nowhere to walk to, they picked the wrong side of the river.
If traffic and parking in Riverside is the chief complaint, the city needs to have serious discussions about public transit to and from the area; not rezone the area into oblivion. Imagine a 24/7 trolley service that made loops through Riverside, Avondale, Murray Hill, Brooklyn, Downtown, Springfield, and San Marco. If it were reliable it could probably breakeven on the lunch rush alone during the week as people working on the Southbank and Northbank try to get to all the restaurants in the surrounding areas.
I'm so sick of the good old boys or whatever you call these people holding the city back. The median age in Jacksonville is under 35 and we need to take advantage of that, many cities would kill for our demographics.
I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?
Quote from: RiversideRambler on October 18, 2016, 04:34:31 PM
I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?
There's not much change. The largest I can see is the removal of two properties at Park & Ingleside from commercial to residential character, the conversion of Five Points Village shopping center from residential to commercial and the conversion of a block off Oak from residential to office.
Quote from: jlmann on October 18, 2016, 05:07:20 PM
correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part. key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development.
I can see this being a big issue. There are quite a few commercial buildings in the residential character area that one could probably make a decent article for them being included in different character . For example, on the SW corner of Park & Dancy, the Avondale Superette and Avondale Best Dry Cleaner building falls in the Residential Character zone, despite being located at the same signalized intersection as South Kitchen and other retail storefronts.
Also, the old Pizza Palace (now 7-Eleven) at Margaret and Post is also located in a Residential Character area. Actually, most of the buildings lining Margaret, at least up to Dellwood, are commercial in nature, probably dating back to the days when a streetcar line ran through that area.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/echo-boomers-flock-to-the-district-arlington/2013/06/21/4c32bf84-d763-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html
I read these posts almost dail but rarely post. I am more of an observer or guest as my wife and I live out-of-town. We are seriously shopping for a condo to enable us to relocate to Jacksonville within two years. Of recent issues, including the pension debates leading up to the August vote, , it is the theme in this thread that is giving me pause. We really like our current neighborhood featured in the link above. The high cost of living and winter snows here nudge us south. In Arlington, Virginia, the young adult surge and plenty of baby boomers have combined with many other factors to make this area thrive. I really hope some direction toward developing a broad approach to future growth emerges in Riverside and surrounding neighborhoods.
Also, thanks for all who contribute to this forum. I've learned a lot and am grateful for the perspectives offered.
"Walk-Ability" ::)
What does this have to do with walkability? If the place is so inherently "walkable" why the ever increasing influx of vehicles,congestion?
Why the uproar over connecting commercial to scarce parking ?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 18, 2016, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: RiversideRambler on October 18, 2016, 04:34:31 PM
I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?
There's not much change. The largest I can see is the removal of two properties at Park & Ingleside from commercial to residential character, the conversion of Five Points Village shopping center from residential to commercial and the conversion of a block off Oak from residential to office.
Quote from: jlmann on October 18, 2016, 05:07:20 PM
correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part. key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development.
I can see this being a big issue. There are quite a few commercial buildings in the residential character area that one could probably make a decent article for them being included in different character . For example, on the SW corner of Park & Dancy, the Avondale Superette and Avondale Best Dry Cleaner building falls in the Residential Character zone, despite being located at the same signalized intersection as South Kitchen and other retail storefronts.
Also, the old Pizza Palace (now 7-Eleven) at Margaret and Post is also located in a Residential Character area. Actually, most of the buildings lining Margaret, at least up to Dellwood, are commercial in nature, probably dating back to the days when a streetcar line ran through that area.
Ennis: Here is the difference with the Superette/Dry Cleaner--it is right next to residential. The block between Dancy and Ingleside is not. None of the commercial structures along Margaret are historic in the residential character area so your statement about the street car line is not accurate. One is built in the back yard of a residential structure and the others removed a residential structure for a 60s building. The area cannot accommodate large commercial businesses. What this legislation is saying is that a restaurant must be small in scale in residential character areas. The 7-11 was at one time a small-scale restaurant before being a 7-11. It can be a small scale restaurant again. The buildings on the right side of Margaret are in the Urban Transition Area.
Please remember that within Residential Character areas, the zoning code did not get relaxed. It remains the same as it was before the Overlay. But the Overlay relaxed the code in Office, Commercial and UTA with UTA being the most relaxed.
In addition to the Deluxe Cleaners buildings on Oak St., there are only 9 historic commercial structures that exist in the entire Overlay area within Residential Character Areas. Three of those are mixed-use with apartments above and retail below. All of the buildings are in current use except one.
Quote from: jlmann on October 18, 2016, 05:07:20 PM
correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part. key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development. Except all the silly little business the PROUD types think are viable in historic structures requiring huge upfront investment.
restaurants/bars are really the only category of business that can justify the investment needed to move into most of the old building stock
the simple truth is that retail is dead in historic areas without something to draw people in. a restaurant does that. take roost- that whole area will be little changed 5 years from now with no roost and this new overlay.
put roost there and the other buildings/shops will fill in
its a pipe dream that a network of yarn shops or the like scattered around can/will sustain themselves without the influx of people getting out to eat and drink. sadly jim love and his ilk would prefer an empty, run down building to anything that causes even the slightest aural disruption to their delicate ears. it's hard to go to bed at 8:00 when those dang kids are roaming around!
RAP meeting on the issue scheduled for 2 Nov from 6-8: https://www.facebook.com/events/573806319487807/
Henceforth ( skip Avondale,'henceforth' sounds like Ortega term :) any reference to " walk able neighborhood" to be stricken and replaced with "Profitable neighborhood"
I am so confused. I did a google search on this amendment that Jim Love proposed (AMENDMENT 2016-580) and the information on the COJ website (city council) is so perplexing especially considering that this pasted document indicates public hearings have already occurred...
2016-580
ORD-MC Amend Chapt 656 (Zoning Code), Part 1 (Gen Provisions), Subpart C (Procedures for Rezoning & Amends to the Zoning Code) & Part 3 (Schedule of Dist Regs), Subpart O (Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay), Ord Code, to add New Criterion & Require Council to Evaluate Specific Criteria before apv a Land Use or Zoning Appl in the Riverside/Avondale Overlay, Provide Intent of Designating the Character Areas, Amend Applicability of Overlay to PUD's, Specify Requiremts for Rezoning of Propty in All Character Areas, Limit Permissible Uses by Exception for CRO Zoning Dist in the Historic Residential Character Area, Amend Character Area Designations in Table 1.0, Amend Parking Requiremts within the Commercial Character Area, Provide Requiremts for Conversions to Non-Residential Uses & Limit Deviations & Waivers in the Historic Residential Character Area, Amend Parking Requiremts within the Historic Residential Character Area, & Provide Standards for Restaurants in the Residential Character Area; Replacing Existing Character Area Map. (Fetner) (Introduced by CM Love)
LUZ PH Pursuant to Sec 656.123, Ord Code - 10/4/16
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166.041(3)(c)(2), F.S. & CR 3.601 - 9/27/16 & 10/11/16
1. 8/23/2016 CO Introduced: LUZ
9/7/2016 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer
2. 9/13/2016 CO Read 2nd & Rereferred; LUZ
9/27/2016 CO PH Addnl 10/11/16
Can someone come up with a template for residents / homeowners in the boundary, addressing point by point what is good / bad with this zoning proposal? I'm sure people know lawyers or people who are good with writing those type of artifacts. This should be shared with residents and those residents send to all relevant parties in thread here: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,27941.msg455261.html#msg455261
Preferably snail mail (or hand delivered) + email by those living in the district.
As Jim Love's commercial business (State Farm) is in the King street district, I surmise the restaurant pieces are influenced by homeowners stopping into his office and voicing their concerns. He needs to realize that people pay little attention to local city politics (which is why he seems to win every term although there always many people unhappy with him) but with a measure like this, there will be a reason to mobilize and unseat him in the next election. Voter apathy leads to a small set of voters holding disproportionate influence in matters like this.
Points that seem obviously beneficial are expanding the RAP designation out to FCCJ on Roosevelt. Currently the zoning ends with an arbitrary street around Azalea and snakes around Little Fishweir.
Points that are detrimental are limiting restaurant times to 8:00pm -- 1. effectively halt economic investment in the area 2. detrimental to exisiting business viability 3. detrimental to existing homeowner value 4. detrimental to existing resident quality of life by removing the character and vibrancy of the neighborhood (there are many dead zones in jacksonville to live e.g. nocatee, mandarin, middleburg, kernan rd, etc) 5. detrimental to attracting younger crowd from other cities, who are willing to invest in improving the culture, infrastructure and therefore material economic value of a historic district 6. <etc>
Media scrutiny is growing, including links to MJ.
http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-riverside-zoning-plan-causes-social-media-stir (http://news.wjct.org/post/jacksonville-riverside-zoning-plan-causes-social-media-stir)
Quote from: Kay on October 19, 2016, 08:56:24 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 18, 2016, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: RiversideRambler on October 18, 2016, 04:34:31 PM
I've tried looking at the original and proposed overlay maps and I'm not seeing any difference. Could someone point out what they are?
There's not much change. The largest I can see is the removal of two properties at Park & Ingleside from commercial to residential character, the conversion of Five Points Village shopping center from residential to commercial and the conversion of a block off Oak from residential to office.
Quote from: jlmann on October 18, 2016, 05:07:20 PM
correct rambler- areas specified of certain character are not changing- but that's the slick part. key issue is that within all that yellow are properties to which these new regs will virtually prohibit development.
I can see this being a big issue. There are quite a few commercial buildings in the residential character area that one could probably make a decent article for them being included in different character . For example, on the SW corner of Park & Dancy, the Avondale Superette and Avondale Best Dry Cleaner building falls in the Residential Character zone, despite being located at the same signalized intersection as South Kitchen and other retail storefronts.
Also, the old Pizza Palace (now 7-Eleven) at Margaret and Post is also located in a Residential Character area. Actually, most of the buildings lining Margaret, at least up to Dellwood, are commercial in nature, probably dating back to the days when a streetcar line ran through that area.
Ennis: Here is the difference with the Superette/Dry Cleaner--it is right next to residential. The block between Dancy and Ingleside is not. None of the commercial structures along Margaret are historic in the residential character area so your statement about the street car line is not accurate. One is built in the back yard of a residential structure and the others removed a residential structure for a 60s building. The area cannot accommodate large commercial businesses. What this legislation is saying is that a restaurant must be small in scale in residential character areas. The 7-11 was at one time a small-scale restaurant before being a 7-11. It can be a small scale restaurant again. The buildings on the right side of Margaret are in the Urban Transition Area.
Please remember that within Residential Character areas, the zoning code did not get relaxed. It remains the same as it was before the Overlay. But the Overlay relaxed the code in Office, Commercial and UTA with UTA being the most relaxed.
At the time I made this statement, I was thinking about 742 Dellwood. It was converted into full residential during the mid-2000s, but was built as a mixed use building in 1910. It's certainly an example of historic commercial built along an operational streetcar line at the time. You can see the storefront and streetcar line on Margaret Street in this 1929 photo:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/History/City-Plan-of-Jacksonville-1929/i-jVDc8Cb/0/O/1928-Margaret%20looking%20north%20from%20Myra%20-%20Riverside.jpg)
Nevertheless, yes many of the other commercial buildings along that stretch date back to the 50s and 60s. For example, 824 Margaret (built in 1955) has been around for 61 years. That's a long time.
There's a house in the photo where 824 Margaret exits today. I personally think the historic home remaining would have been better than the building there today.
From what I've heard recently, the City rezoned Margaret and Stockton with the vision of the first two homes being demolished and commercial fronting Stockton put in its place. I don't think what the City did enhanced this part of the neighborhood. And now we're a historic district and those structures are not coming down.
742 Dellwood also replaced a frame house in Riverside's early years. At one time, the Northbank was mostly residential and full of structures just as impressive as what people flock to Savannah and Charleston to see. As the city grew and densified, other uses came to support the population base. Unfortunately, we can't recreate the past in in some cases, mine being a minority in particular, that's probably not a bad thing. All we can do is improve on what we have to work with in our present state.
Here is an overlay of the existing versus proposed with the changing parcels highlighted. Its not much... but that is not the point.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/wIr1qpYR6TBGo3qdlAX5Z1qjgegEIIO2YnNfK4Hg4O9lyeOPdOSc6ujWZO5kRTLR/file)
What I see is that this map is misleading. That huge swath of yellow in the middle is hardly one single character. It is everything from intimate alleyways to wide church-front gathering places and open stretches of parkland. If you want to consider that character is a function in what use is appropriate for a given parcel, at least do it properly. Don;t lump our whole neighborhood into a couple of broadly defined buckets that really don't get at the issue of whether a restaurant can coexist with a residence. Certainly its working at Pine Grove Deli. Let's ask why that is OK and use the answers to create thoughtful limitations that address real conditions.
To add to Steven's point, its not about when a structure was built or what kind of roof it has - that is a distraction.
"At the time I made this statement, I was thinking about 742 Dellwood. It was converted into full residential during the mid-2000s, but was built as a mixed use building in 1910. It's certainly an example of historic commercial built along an operational streetcar line at the time. You can see the storefront and streetcar line on Margaret Street in this 1929 photo:"
Small correction, Lakelander. 742 Dellwood is still mixed-use. Office downstairs, residential upstairs and in replacement building. 726 Dellwood, part of the same property but a separate building, is rented out to a very fine artist as studio and gallery, 730 Dellwood in the same building is the garage for the residence. Two, two-story frame houses were torn down in 1947 to build this existing building.
BTW, thanks for finding that 1928 picture. It confirmed that we did a good job figuring out what the original appearance was and returning to it. Some recent sewer work on the Dellwood side uncovered a number of well-preserved wooden ties from that streetcar line in the picture too.
Quote from: JFman00 on October 17, 2016, 07:27:27 PM
First comment to my FB post: "Well the good news is that Jacksonville is an awful s***hole where nobody should want to live. There's always literally anywhere else? And I say that from Memphis!"
Thanks Jim Love for ensuring Jacksonville remains a joke.
Adjacent County have been happily filling militant Anti Duval Narrative for decades.I have witnessed recent newcomers to RAP that soon bailed. (King Street area)
Kinda' makes "Jacksonville's Millionth Mania" rather maniacal.
Consider the positives!!.... decline in "Mayberry USA" Avondale will result in "affordable" housing....Yea!!! Might eventually blend in to the many thousands of acres to the west....curiously ignored now..... 8)
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 27, 2016, 03:59:58 PM
"At the time I made this statement, I was thinking about 742 Dellwood. It was converted into full residential during the mid-2000s, but was built as a mixed use building in 1910. It's certainly an example of historic commercial built along an operational streetcar line at the time. You can see the storefront and streetcar line on Margaret Street in this 1929 photo:"
Small correction, Lakelander. 742 Dellwood is still mixed-use. Office downstairs, residential upstairs and in replacement building. 726 Dellwood, part of the same property but a separate building, is rented out to a very fine artist as studio and gallery, 730 Dellwood in the same building is the garage for the residence. Two, two-story frame houses were torn down in 1947 to build this existing building.
We are in the process of putting a conservation easement for both appearance and use on the whole property. It's last previous use was as a biker - stripper bar with the attendant drug dealing and prostitution. It was a tremendous drag on the whole neighborhood and we are trying to prevent something like that from happening ever again in the future.
BTW, thanks for finding that 1928 picture. It confirmed that we did a good job figuring out what the original appearance was and returning to it. Some recent sewer work on the Dellwood side uncovered a number of well-preserved wooden ties from that streetcar line in the picture too.
Over Laid 8)
Glad to Out Grow this place.What a great privilege. Cheap,too!
Should Jim Love's clandestine and frequent meetings with RAP fall under Sunshine Law scrutiny? IF not, why not?
Should RAP be registered as a lobbyist?
The whole idea of creating 100 and 150 behemoth restaurants is based solely on the false restriction of COP 4 licenses... either drop SRX requirements down to 12 seats or increase COP 4... No restaurateur wants to have to carry 100+ seats they can only fill on some weekend nights... NY, Chicago, SFO etc etc etc there are hundreds of thriving restaurants of 20 to 40 seats... with huge rents...
But they need alcohol sales to pay the bills... especially in JAX (very limited disposable income)...
Wake up Jim Love and wake up RAP minions... stop being anti competitive and protecting your monopolies...
Councilman Love has withdrawn his overlay bill. Great work by everybody involved to get the word out in order for both sides to have their opinions heard.
Quote from: JaxAvondale on November 09, 2016, 08:20:44 PM
Councilman Love has withdrawn his overlay bill. Great work by everybody involved to get the word out in order for both sides to have their opinions heard.
Have you heard of renewed interest in resident parking stickers? Do you have your papers?
Quote from: Sentient on December 06, 2016, 07:44:55 AM
Quote from: JaxAvondale on November 09, 2016, 08:20:44 PM
Councilman Love has withdrawn his overlay bill. Great work by everybody involved to get the word out in order for both sides to have their opinions heard.
Have you heard of renewed interest in resident parking stickers? Do you have your papers?
I've heard some neighbors requesting parking stickers at the meeting last month. Personally, I don't see parking stickers as a solution. Honestly, I don't think parking in Avondale is a big issue. Were there a lot of parked cars in the neighborhood on Saturday night? Sure but most of the cars were gone by 10pm.
The crazy thing for us is that for all the complaining and end of world predictions about Mellow, the biggest impact to parking on my block (3600 Riverside) has been upgrading of Boone Park playground. Well that plus residents who have multiple vehicles. The new playground has made Van Wert a bit hairy as people park sticking out into the street.
What is stopping the city from removing the unkempt foliage on the Ingleside medians that span from Avondale all the way to Park Street? That would open up considerable overflow and employee parking along the strip..
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2975247,-81.7054053,3a,75y,117.46h,89.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saY4qjp3KGee4hzHV3zJ75w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: JHAT76 on December 06, 2016, 12:12:38 PM
The crazy thing for us is that for all the complaining and end of world predictions about Mellow, the biggest impact to parking on my block (3600 Riverside) has been upgrading of Boone Park playground. Well that plus residents who have multiple vehicles. The new playground has made Van Wert a bit hairy as people park sticking out into the street.
I'm amazed at the amount of people that the new playground has generated in the park.