(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Spirit-Animal/i-74b4Rbj/0/448fd03b/L/IMG_1120-L.jpg)
QuoteThe sibling entrepreneurs behind Grassroots Natural Market want the old house at the corner of Forbes and Margaret Streets to be your Spirit Animal - or at least your new spot for craft beer, wine, and pie. And they just might reshape a back street of Five Points for the better.
Full article: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/spirit-animal-beer-and-wine-bar-coming-to-five-points/
Interesting that the Planning Staff recommended denial based on not enough parking and being too close to residential neighbors. Since it is west of Margaret St it is not in the "urban transition zone" and doesn't get reductions in parking requirements.
Planning commission approved it anyway.
I like it, I just wonder what the commission's thinking was.
Quote from: Live_Oak on October 09, 2018, 08:34:52 AM
Interesting that the Planning Staff recommended denial based on not enough parking and being too close to residential neighbors. Since it is west of Margaret St it is not in the "urban transition zone" and doesn't get reductions in parking requirements.
Planning commission approved it anyway.
I like it, I just wonder what the commission's thinking was.
You are correct that the UTA begins on the other side of Margaret, but both of these properties shown below are zoned CCG-1. There is actually a parking lot between the yellow house and the residential unit to the right in this picture. and a parking lot behind both buildings.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Spirit-Animal/i-86m6wc4/0/0056df37/X2/yellowstrip-X2.jpg)
I think the Planning Commission correctly identified that the applicant was opening a business within an inline retail center that has its own parking on site. The green house, yellow house, the building that includes Grassroots and Hovan and another building across the alleyway from Grassroots along Post Street are essentially all one big shopping center. In that respect, its no different than Peter Sleiman's strip mall across the street that includes Community First Credit Union and several restaurants. The main difference between the Grassroots/Spirit Animal property (that shares parking) and the Sleiman strip mall (that shares parking and also includes on-street parking along Margaret)... is that the Grassroots retail center is more context sensitive to the neighborhood. Instead of a bland, stucco building... the 'pad sites' on the Grassroots retail center include old Crafstman cottages. When you combine on street parking that will go along Forbes/Margaret with the existing parking lot in the middle of the Grassroots retail center... you essentially meet the parking requirement with only a small variance. I think that's a reasonable variance to approve, once you wrap your head around what the entirety of the site actually is.
This is a terrible name for a bar, my goodness
This is exciting news. James is great and has always kept a great beer program at Grass Roots. I'm very excited about the commercial district spreading out from park street. Jacksonville has a number of linear commercial areas, but usually they do not spread beyond the main strip.
Quote from: wanderson91 on October 09, 2018, 09:56:17 AM
This is a terrible name for a bar, my goodness
I have faith that it'll be a cool venue, as Grasroots is a fantastic store with an even better beer selection, but I agree with this point.
Plus, you gotta be careful with cultural appropriation nowadays! ;D
Quote from: fieldafm on October 09, 2018, 09:37:59 AM
Quote from: Live_Oak on October 09, 2018, 08:34:52 AM
Interesting that the Planning Staff recommended denial based on not enough parking and being too close to residential neighbors. Since it is west of Margaret St it is not in the "urban transition zone" and doesn't get reductions in parking requirements.
Planning commission approved it anyway.
I like it, I just wonder what the commission's thinking was.
You are correct that the UTA begins on the other side of Margaret, but both of these properties shown below are zoned CCG-1. There is actually a parking lot between the yellow house and the residential unit to the right in this picture. and a parking lot behind both buildings.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Spirit-Animal/i-86m6wc4/0/0056df37/X2/yellowstrip-X2.jpg)
I think the Planning Commission correctly identified that the applicant was opening a business within an inline retail center that has its own parking on site. The green house, yellow house, the building that includes Grassroots and Hovan and another building across the alleyway from Grassroots along Post Street are essentially all one big shopping center. In that respect, its no different than Peter Sleiman's strip mall across the street that includes Community First Credit Union and several restaurants. The main difference between the Grassroots/Spirit Animal property (that shares parking) and the Sleiman strip mall (that shares parking and also includes on-street parking along Margaret)... is that the Grassroots retail center is more context sensitive to the neighborhood. Instead of a bland, stucco building... the 'pad sites' on the Grassroots retail center include old Crafstman cottages. When you combine on street parking that will go along Forbes/Margaret with the existing parking lot in the middle of the Grassroots retail center... you essentially meet the parking requirement with only a small variance. I think that's a reasonable variance to approve, once you wrap your head around what the entirety of the site actually is.
Agreed. IMO, if the city (or whoever) didn't want this to become a retail site, they shouldn't have zoned it that way. Since it has CCG-1 zoning - and shares parking with the commercial building that Grassroots and Hovan are in - this exemption is definitely fair. No one would think twice about the exact same business opening up in the strip mall.
It has been a month. Are they still running with the Spirit Animal name? I hope not.
Quote from: funwithteeth on November 09, 2018, 03:19:05 PM
It has been a month. Are they still running with the Spirit Animal name? I hope not.
I'll ask.
Even without the name's cultural appropriation, they're giving a bar that name while seemingly ignoring the long-running racial stereotype of Native Americans being a bunch of alcoholics.
If they don't hear about this now, they'll definitely be receiving negative blowback by the time they open.
Quote from: funwithteeth on November 09, 2018, 06:50:58 PM
Even without the name's cultural appropriation, they're giving a bar that name while seemingly ignoring the long-running racial stereotype of Native Americans being a bunch of alcoholics.
If they don't hear about this now, they'll definitely be receiving negative blowback by the time they open.
Where is spirit animal used as a stereotype for Native Americans? ???
https://www.worldreligionnews.com/opinion/spirit-animal-not-joke-oppression (https://www.worldreligionnews.com/opinion/spirit-animal-not-joke-oppression)
QuotePopular culture has seen push back from "Indian Headdresses" and games like "Cowboys and Indians," yet all over Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest and Buzzfeed 'spirit animals' are blowing up. Scrolling down your newsfeed will expose you to online quizzes that tell you what your spirit animal is, or maybe a new coffee mug exclaiming "My Spirit Animal Is COFFEE" being sold by an Etsy artist.
Each and every one of these things is cultural appropriation. Spirit Animals is a bastardization of a collection of traditions among some Native American tribes. The use of spirit animal in popular culture infantilizes and patronizes a long standing indigenous belief system and contributes to the religious and cultural oppression of indigenous peoples.
Even if they didn't intend to offend by choosing that name, plenty of people will still—rightfully—call them out on it.
Love the name!
If they ever need a soundtrack for a commercial:
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Pow_Wow_The_Indian_Boy.html (http://www.televisiontunes.com/Pow_Wow_The_Indian_Boy.html)
Quote from: jagsonville on November 09, 2018, 07:19:47 PM
Quote from: funwithteeth on November 09, 2018, 06:50:58 PM
Even without the name's cultural appropriation, they're giving a bar that name while seemingly ignoring the long-running racial stereotype of Native Americans being a bunch of alcoholics.
If they don't hear about this now, they'll definitely be receiving negative blowback by the time they open.
Where is spirit animal used as a stereotype for Native Americans? ???
The term is not a stereotype for Native Americans. The 'spirit animal' is a concept held by some Native tribes. I think that was the point.
In any event, it's a stupid name and they could do better.
Here's an update on this project (I'll have a fuller one later this week). It has been delayed for several months by appeals from RAP and two neighbors up the street primarily stemming from noise concerns. To accommodate the appeals, the owners have agreed to a series of changes that will move the porch and shift most seating inside. Ironically, considering RAP's mission, the requested changes will result in the building's exterior and interior changing substantially more than the original plans. There are still concerns to be hashed out. The project goes to the City Council Land Use and Zoning committee today at 5. It's a lot of hurdles to jump through for a small business. Additionally, it'll have a different name than Spirit Animal.
Typical RAP being RAP. The end result will be worse for the neighborhood and not as well designed as the original proposal. See Mellow in Avondale for reference.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 05, 2019, 12:20:20 PM
Typical RAP being RAP. The end result will be worse for the neighborhood and not as well designed as the original proposal. See Mellow in Avondale for reference.
Folks can let their feelings be heard by emailing LUZ chair Matt Schellenberg at matts@coj.net (http://matts@coj.net).
I will say that the owners seem upbeat about the changes in general, just surprised that they're coming from RAP. We'll have a story out with more updates later this week.
I've never seen James not upbeat, so that's no surprise. Are the two neighbors commercial or residential?
So will they be moving the Beer out of Grassroots?
^I met with the owners for some followup. We'll have an article on it out soon.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 05, 2019, 12:03:21 PM
Additionally, it'll have a different name than Spirit Animal.
I'm in the minority here but I liked the name. Seems like a good bar name for that area.
The big question really should be, why does Jacksonville still have parking requirements when most cities have either eliminated them or are in the process of doing so?
http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-parking-requirements-economic-development.html
Quote from: Kerry on February 12, 2019, 07:07:20 PM
The big question really should be, why does Jacksonville still have parking requirements when most cities have either eliminated them or are in the process of doing so?
http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-parking-requirements-economic-development.html
Exactly! How many more empty surface parking lots and half empty parking decks do we need downtown?
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Spirit-Animal/i-jJDWzpW/0/da2621d6/L/IMG_2974-L.jpg)
Quote
The planned Five Points restaurant by the sibling owners of Grassroots Natural Market has undergone some changes: new name, new designs, and pies by the creator of Sweet Theory. It's also facing challenges from some in the neighborhood. When can you stop by for a seasonal small plate and a glass of craft beer? Find out the full story in this Jaxson exclusive.
Read more: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/grassroots-owners-restaurant-faces-changes-hurdles/
Great article. I really hope this comes to fruition, but I wouldn't blame James and Jack for saying it's not worth the hassle on this one. It's unbelievable the amount of hoops they are having to jump through. The finished product sounds like it will be one of my new favorite spots if RAP doesn't recommend demolition in favor of additional parking.
I'll make sure to buy more beer from Grassroots in the interim to help fund the development.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 13, 2019, 09:47:56 AM
Great article. I really hope this comes to fruition, but I wouldn't blame James and Jack for saying it's not worth the hassle on this one. It's unbelievable the amount of hoops they are having to jump through. The finished product sounds like it will be one of my new favorite spots if RAP doesn't recommend demolition in favor of additional parking.
I'll make sure to buy more beer from Grassroots in the interim to help fund the development.
Yeah, it's a lot of hoops, and a ton of money, for a small business. No wonder Murray Hill and Main Street have taken off so well with exactly the types of businesses that used to flock to Riverside.
As for the project moving forward, the next step is Land Use and Zoning:
Quote
The project next goes before the City Council Land Use and Zoning committee from 5-7 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 20, in City Hall. Those wishing to weigh in are invited to speak at the meeting or to email Land Use and Zoning committee chair Matt Schellenberg at matts@coj.net (http://matts@coj.net).
The Land Use and Zoning meeting is tomorrow, Feb. 20, from 5-7 in City Hall. The public can weigh in at the meeting or by emailing Matt Schellenberg at matts@coj.net (http://matts@coj.net).
We've been in touch with RAP, and from that I can vouch for the quote in the article saying the appellants are being tight lipped about what it is they want here. My impression is that they want even more concessions on top of what's already been agreed to, so the project is likely to change again (if it progresses at all).
They should send them the bill.
So the appellants are going to list surprise demands tomorrow at the zoning meeting? Do they not have a deadline to issue their complaints so that this process can move forward? This is turning into The Roost (is that even the name? It's been so long that I've forgotten) part 2. Thanks RAP
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 20, 2019, 11:26:00 AM
So the appellants are going to list surprise demands tomorrow at the zoning meeting? Do they not have a deadline to issue their complaints so that this process can move forward? This is turning into The Roost (is that even the name? It's been so long that I've forgotten) part 2. Thanks RAP
That's my understanding. From what I can see, the surprise demands are coming from the other appellants rather than RAP. Though RAP is still part of the same appeal.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 20, 2019, 12:24:39 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 20, 2019, 11:26:00 AM
So the appellants are going to list surprise demands tomorrow at the zoning meeting? Do they not have a deadline to issue their complaints so that this process can move forward? This is turning into The Roost (is that even the name? It's been so long that I've forgotten) part 2. Thanks RAP
That's my understanding. From what I can see, the surprise demands are coming from the other appellants rather than RAP. Though RAP is still part of the same appeal.
That's absurd. They are just trying to bleed Spirit Animal dry so that they give up. They likely don't even have any real demands other than to ruin the business
I wrote to Matt and expressed my concerns.
RAP is a truly horrible organization that needs to disappear.
I don't understand why RAP does not just stick to their written standards. If the restaurant meets the standards then it should move forward. We have been living in R/A for about 3 years and RAP (to us) feels more like NIMBY lobbyists and bullies.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on February 20, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
I don't understand why RAP does not just stick to their written standards. If the restaurant meets the standards then it should move forward. We have been living in R/A for about 3 years and RAP (to us) feels more like NIMBY lobbyists and bullies.
The issue here is the outdoor seating would have to be built new. It's not "by right" in the zoning - they can have a restaurant, but needed an exception for the outdoor patio. The Planning Commission approved that, which is what led to the appeal by RAP and the two neighbors. So at this point, the owners' options are pretty limited. They can make an agreement with all the appellants by 5 pm today - and it seems unlikely the two neighbors will go for that - or they see if LUZ will support it, and risk further appeals at every later step.
From an outsiders view RAP seems to do more harm than good. How was it formed? Is it funded? Why do they have so much power? If it is zoned for commercial and planning has approved the deck, then RAP and others should go away. If you buy land near airport you have planes. If you buy a house beside a commercial zoned property you will have a business. Common sense.
Thanks Tac. It does seem that SA is giving RAP what they request, but it seems like the neighbors come back with something and RAP changes the expectations based on these two neighbors (who are going to keep changing the expectations until SA gives up). When we moved to this neighborhood, we visited each area at different times and made our conclusions on what we experienced. If 5 points was a shitty neighborhood years past, it did not mean it would and should be that way forever. Seeing what happened to Roost, I feel RAP is trying to be something it is not. It was for historic preservation and has now become the mafia for backwards neighbors.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on February 20, 2019, 03:54:51 PM
Thanks Tac. It does seem that SA is giving RAP what they request, but it seems like the neighbors come back with something and RAP changes the expectations based on these two neighbors (who are going to keep changing the expectations until SA gives up). When we moved to this neighborhood, we visited each area at different times and made our conclusions on what we experienced. If 5 points was a shitty neighborhood years past, it did not mean it would and should be that way forever. Seeing what happened to Roost, I feel RAP is trying to be something it is not. It was for historic preservation and has now become the mafia for backwards neighbors.
Exactly, historic preservation is not the same as zoning and code approval/changes/enforcement.
Quote from: jaxjags on February 20, 2019, 03:03:09 PM
From an outsiders view RAP seems to do more harm than good. How was it formed? Is it funded? Why do they have so much power? If it is zoned for commercial and planning has approved the deck, then RAP and others should go away. If you buy land near airport you have planes. If you buy a house beside a commercial zoned property you will have a business. Common sense.
Dude. Do a bit of research. Talk with them. Spouting uniformed opinions is not productive.
We're hearing the appeal was approved and the project is now dead.
That is just sad.
The appeal was approved based on the parking requirement, which was something touched on and seemingly resolved after the Planning Commission approved the project, but hadn't really been a factor since. It wasn't even part of the appeal that the LUZ committee voted to approve. It pays to have Paul Harden on your side. Essentially several council members were concerned about Riverside's parking problem, that great boogeyman of Jacksonville's urban core. They bought into the thinking that this development doesn't add any more spots (to dozens they have in the complex). Council Member Becton made great points about how people in Riverside, you know, walk as well as drive, but that was lost on some of his colleagues. Only he and Broche voted against the appeal.
RAP signed on to the last agreement with all their concessions met, and went so far as to support the project tonight. It seemed pretty clear that the other appellants' goal was just to kill the project. If they had an interest in compromise they wouldn't have kept the parking thing until today.
#itseasierhere
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 20, 2019, 06:59:32 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on February 20, 2019, 03:03:09 PM
From an outsiders view RAP seems to do more harm than good. How was it formed? Is it funded? Why do they have so much power? If it is zoned for commercial and planning has approved the deck, then RAP and others should go away. If you buy land near airport you have planes. If you buy a house beside a commercial zoned property you will have a business. Common sense.
Dude. Do a bit of research. Talk with them. Spouting uniformed opinions is not productive.
Just an opinion which I can have. See what happened. I rest my case.
Quote from: jaxjags on February 21, 2019, 08:41:22 AM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on February 20, 2019, 06:59:32 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on February 20, 2019, 03:03:09 PM
From an outsiders view RAP seems to do more harm than good. How was it formed? Is it funded? Why do they have so much power? If it is zoned for commercial and planning has approved the deck, then RAP and others should go away. If you buy land near airport you have planes. If you buy a house beside a commercial zoned property you will have a business. Common sense.
Dude. Do a bit of research. Talk with them. Spouting uniformed opinions is not productive.
Just an opinion which I can have. See what happened. I rest my case.
Just saw Tacs comment - Sorry. I sill believe these areas will never be like many urban neighborhoods due to too many restrictions, especially parking. A walkable area doesn't need parking. People should NOT be able to kill a project that meets zoning and is approved by a governing board just because they don't like it, I am sure there are many, Roost and Kings avenue. Historic preservation seems to have gone too far.
Quote from: jaxjags on February 21, 2019, 08:50:29 AM
Just saw Tacs comment - Sorry. I sill believe these areas will never be like many urban neighborhoods due to too many restrictions, especially parking.
This. They won't. The policies don't allow for true urbanism at a grander scale. It would be good to have an area of the core carved out, identified and allowed to blossom independently. I'd bet the house, it would quickly become one of the hottest scenes in the city.
How many businesses has Jim Love killed (or tried to kill, ie Mellow Mushroom) in his district?
Maybe a small bright side to this is that as RAP gets a reputation of making it more difficult for businesses to open; those business may decide against relocating to R/A, which may spill them into surrounding neighborhoods. Brooklyn, Fishweir, Murray Hill, Ortega stand to benefit which I don't think is a bad thing.
However, it's unfortunate these business people had to go through this. Nothing says "It's Easier Here" than unknown, shifting and last minute demands.
On the one hand, it's a shame that a store front (or weird house converted to a commercial premises) will remain empty. On the other hand, it's nice that Riverside isn't getting another bar.
Looks like this one got denied. According to the article the owners were trying to compromise and RAP was on board, but two neighborhood residents hired Paul Harden, which usually means game over:
Quote
City Council denied approval for the proposed Spirit Animal restaurant in Five Points to serve food, beer and wine.
The Jacksonville Planning Commission had approved a zoning exception for outside sales and service of food, beer and wine for the proposed Spirit Animal restaurant at 2000 Forbes St.
Riverside Avondale Preservation Inc. and neighborhood residents Mary Ellen Hansen and Ryan Parde appealed that order, noting the added noise from the outdoor seating area and the potential parking problems on Forbes Street.
The council Land Use and Zoning Committee recommended approval of the appeal Feb. 20.
RAP said at the meeting a settlement agreement would be acceptable with conditions that limited the hours of operation and the direction of the amplified music, but Hansen and Parde did not agree.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/planned-spirit-animal-restaurant-in-five-points-denied-selling-food-beer-and-wine-outside
Correct, as we previously reported here.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 28, 2019, 12:41:26 PM
Correct, as we previously reported here.
Ah...missed the post from last week.
Denial is worse than the owner withdrawing - now, they can't come back with a similar request for a year (I think that is the time).
What about Murray Hill, or King Street? Is 5 Points the ONLY place it can go?
Quote from: Adam White on February 22, 2019, 10:38:19 AM
On the one hand, it's a shame that a store front (or weird house converted to a commercial premises) will remain empty. On the other hand, it's nice that Riverside isn't getting another bar.
Because bars are bad? Or Riverside has too many? I would think that any small business is good, but I must be wrong.
Was the plan to lease or purchase the building?
Quote from: MusicMan on February 28, 2019, 09:30:50 PM
Was the plan to lease or purchase the building?
Lease. The main reasons they are attracted to it is that it's right behind their other business, and right in the Five Points commercial district. Plus they have the lease on it and have spent a lot of money trying to make it work.
Quote from: MusicMan on February 28, 2019, 09:24:27 PM
What about Murray Hill, or King Street? Is 5 Points the ONLY place it can go?
The general concept of a small plate and beer/wine place could go elsewhere, but there aren't a ton of buildings like this that are in commercial areas and have/could have a porch. It would essentially be an entirely new project.
Quote from: Kiva on February 28, 2019, 09:28:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on February 22, 2019, 10:38:19 AM
On the one hand, it's a shame that a store front (or weird house converted to a commercial premises) will remain empty. On the other hand, it's nice that Riverside isn't getting another bar.
Because bars are bad? Or Riverside has too many? I would think that any small business is good, but I must be wrong.
Yeah, bars are bad. But beyond that, it would be nice to see a greater diversity in businesses. We used to joke that anytime a business opened in Riverside, it was just a matter of time before it turned into a bar.
I'm certainly not saying you "must be wrong". I'm simply expressing my opinion. It's possible for two people to have different views on a subject without one being 'wrong' and one being 'right'.
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2019, 07:29:57 AM
Quote from: Kiva on February 28, 2019, 09:28:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on February 22, 2019, 10:38:19 AM
On the one hand, it's a shame that a store front (or weird house converted to a commercial premises) will remain empty. On the other hand, it's nice that Riverside isn't getting another bar.
Because bars are bad? Or Riverside has too many? I would think that any small business is good, but I must be wrong.
Yeah, bars are bad. But beyond that, it would be nice to see a greater diversity in businesses. We used to joke that anytime a business opened in Riverside, it was just a matter of time before it turned into a bar.
I'm certainly not saying you "must be wrong". I'm simply expressing my opinion. It's possible for two people to have different views on a subject without one being 'wrong' and one being 'right'.
I do not agree, and You are Wrong! [end snark mode]
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 01, 2019, 08:34:01 AM
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2019, 07:29:57 AM
Quote from: Kiva on February 28, 2019, 09:28:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on February 22, 2019, 10:38:19 AM
On the one hand, it's a shame that a store front (or weird house converted to a commercial premises) will remain empty. On the other hand, it's nice that Riverside isn't getting another bar.
Because bars are bad? Or Riverside has too many? I would think that any small business is good, but I must be wrong.
Yeah, bars are bad. But beyond that, it would be nice to see a greater diversity in businesses. We used to joke that anytime a business opened in Riverside, it was just a matter of time before it turned into a bar.
I'm certainly not saying you "must be wrong". I'm simply expressing my opinion. It's possible for two people to have different views on a subject without one being 'wrong' and one being 'right'.
I do not agree, and You are Wrong! [end snark mode]
Duly noted!
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2019, 07:29:57 AM
Quote from: Kiva on February 28, 2019, 09:28:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on February 22, 2019, 10:38:19 AM
On the one hand, it's a shame that a store front (or weird house converted to a commercial premises) will remain empty. On the other hand, it's nice that Riverside isn't getting another bar.
Because bars are bad? Or Riverside has too many? I would think that any small business is good, but I must be wrong.
Yeah, bars are bad. But beyond that, it would be nice to see a greater diversity in businesses. We used to joke that anytime a business opened in Riverside, it was just a matter of time before it turned into a bar.
I'm certainly not saying you "must be wrong". I'm simply expressing my opinion. It's possible for two people to have different views on a subject without one being 'wrong' and one being 'right'.
To an extent, that's just the way retail is going. Fewer stores and more restaurants, bars, and venues. And to be fair, this wasn't only a bar, it was a restaurant and the menu focused on things you can't already get in Five Points. The earlier incarnation was also a package store, which would have allowed Grassroots to get rid of the beer so it could expand and move a juice bar into a storefront that's now just storage. It'll be interesting to see what happens next knowing that the neighbors are opposed to any plan that would involve remodeling the space.
^It will likely sit vacant.
Bulldozer hired and Voila... Insta-Park. 8)