ActionNewsJax had a story tonight about a bill filed by C/m Rory Diamond to
Quote
A push to increase affordable housing in Jacksonville could come at the cost of changing the face of suburban Jacksonville neighborhoods.
A new ordinance proposed by Jacksonville City Council would allow for multi-family housing in areas zoned for low or medium density. It would also allow duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in neighborhoods with primarily single-family homes.
The boundaries in Diamond's bill are:
Quote
The ordinance, which was sponsored by Council Member Rory Diamond, would change development requirements for a large area inside the Interstate 295 loop:
From the Trout River on the north
Baymeadows Road and 103rd Street on the south
From Monument Road and Southside Boulevard on the east
To I-295 and New Kings Road on the west
The report points out that the City is working on an update to the land use regulations.
Quote
In a staff report, the City's Planning Department said it supports the legislation's concept to expand what's called "missing middle housing."
However, staff denied the recommendation stating the city is already in the process of updating its land development regulations to increase affordable housing with resiliency in mind, although the full recommendations won't be available until at least February next year.
[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
The report said the bill would "negate the investment of considerable time and money," if approved, and "subject life and property to increased climate hazards."
ActionNews interviewed a woman from San Jose who opposes the bill.
Is Councilor Diamond aware of the City's efforts to update the land development code?
Will the City's LD code update accomplish the "missing middle" goal claimed by Diamond?
Can the best parts of the plans be put together?
Why is Beaches Diamond writing land development rules for not-his-area?
Not sure of all the details but I am aware that much of Durkeeville will not meet the bill's minimal requirements as the average lot in the neighborhood is 35' wide x 95' deep or 3,325 square feet. The bill's minimum lot size for allowing duplexes etc. is 35' wide x 100' deep or 3,500 square feet. Nevertheless, Durkeeville is the exact type of older neighborhood where this should be allowed because its the original neighborhood development pattern and its were more affordable/diverse housing choices are needed. If this bill moves forward, I'd hope that it be amended to include historic urban core neighborhoods with lots sizes that are smaller than 3,500 square feet.
Examples of missing middle on 3,325 square foot lots in Durkeeville:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Barnetts-Subdivision---February-2024/i-76KpSqH/0/LbzzDTvWsQTrBWDB2m77mzGjqj3s6m9wN6DxLFf7H/X3/20240213_123952-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Barnetts-Subdivision---February-2024/i-2BqWsNQ/0/L5r3JCVLQb99bRStZJNTG2K2rTr5KNGR2RhCh8x43/X3/20241206_140508-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Barnetts-Subdivision---February-2024/i-PgdhNTR/0/LbrXV2PMf757wfh98DmsdPvhJCXt4gDmtgpZNZ6Sc/X3/20241206_140119-X3.jpg)
There is a strong preference in the neighborhood for new infill housing to be more on the scale and density of the historic context, as opposed to the cheaper out-of-scale single family housing currently popping up all over the place:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Barnetts-Subdivision---February-2024/i-DqLPJqR/0/MKjTzCFVJjLGjnvTBXntwnXxfczLffMDz7PNmWZKC/X2/20241211_132402-X2.jpg)
Looking at Exhibit 1 of the bill, it seems to be an explainer. The map (page 7 of 7) is a bit different from the description in the Action News story. It looks like most of the wealthy riverfront residential is exempted - San Jose (west of SR 13), Ortega (the entire peninsula), Charter Point (and everything north of Fort Caroline Road east to 295). The Old Arlington Areas along the river (near JU), and Riverside/Avondale are within the Missing Middle Overlay area.
Will have to read to see how the MM Overlay meshes with other overlays - like RAP, Greater Arlington, and so on.
Link to Zoning Committee page for the bill: https://jaxcityc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7013516&GUID=E5584956-97CC-4EF0-B14F-82BE0885636E
The map is part of Exhibit 1
At least someone is trying to address our code. Hard to find someone locally that thinks our code is sufficient & I haven't seen any real change in 5+ years. The last substantial modification was 2008 I believe. PUD's have dominated our rezoning process because of it.
Examples:
- Being adjacent to LDR limits density to the same dwellings per acre if it was DT or on the rural westside
- The mess of SFH/Townhomes/Duplex regulations & what is/isn't allowed on grandfathered non-conforming platted lots
- Uncomplimentary land buffers in urban areas (lol)
15du/acre for LDR is wild, but we need some common sense solutions for what we have now. If you live in the urban area, and you are SFH abutting MDR/commercial, you shouldn't have the right to effectively 'downzone' everything that touches your zone. This single rule applies to a significant percentage of commercial areas within the I-295 belt. Crazy to think nothing has substantially change in a city for 15+ years to change one of the most important pieces of legislation a city has.
Is there a link to the Action News story?
Oops, sorry, thought I'd included it with all the quotes: https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/jacksonville-ordinance-could-bring-major-change-low-density-housing-neighborhoods/CQWOBA2UIFCLNBUQVH6YK5XFKI/
Reading all this, I am surprised to feel it may make sense to hand it to Rory Diamond; we don't agree on much.
I agree with lakelander's recommendations for historic neighborhoods, but broadly it has been long past time to start treating the urbanized region (particularly within the Beltway) as a real urban area instead of the island of Downtown surrounded by mostly low density suburbs. There are few good reasons to artificially limit density in the midst of a housing crisis with demand that is spreading into suburban counties and demanding billions in highway expansion, instead of growing the center of the region with existing infrastructure. I'd like to see some additional consideration towards things like whether we really need to mandate parking instead of allowing the market to decide and leveraging the investments already made in mass transit.
Looking at the Planning Department report, I think it demonstrates the issues that have long been seen with planning departments across the US. There's a lot of opinionation on the allowable density that trends much lower than the bill proposes, while simultaneously proposing to reduce the area that the bill would affect. I do see the value in making sure to not build in flood zones, of course, but if that is to be the case (which if it is, would presumably also affect lower-density development in those zones?) then the decrease in overall zoned capacity must be made up elsewhere. It strikes me as rather silly to see complaints in this report about "increased impact to public services" regarding parts of town where schools close for lack of students.
I hope that whatever changes are made to this bill preserve the premise that a city, especially one that cries out for investment as Jacksonville does, should be allowed to be a city.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 30, 2024, 08:48:24 PM
Not sure of all the details but I am aware that much of Durkeeville will not meet the bill's minimal requirements as the average lot in the neighborhood is 35' wide x 95' deep or 3,325 square feet. The bill's minimum lot size for allowing duplexes etc. is 35' wide x 100' deep or 3,500 square feet.
I suspect you'll also find that a lot of 35' lots aren't actually 35', but 34' & 6" or some other variation. That matters.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 30, 2024, 10:22:21 PM
Will have to read to see how the MM Overlay meshes with other overlays - like RAP, Greater Arlington, and so on.
I believe existing zoning overlays would not be impacted by this bill.
Quote from: fsu813 on January 03, 2025, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 30, 2024, 08:48:24 PM
Not sure of all the details but I am aware that much of Durkeeville will not meet the bill's minimal requirements as the average lot in the neighborhood is 35' wide x 95' deep or 3,325 square feet. The bill's minimum lot size for allowing duplexes etc. is 35' wide x 100' deep or 3,500 square feet.
I suspect you'll also find that a lot of 35' lots aren't actually 35', but 34' & 6" or some other variation. That matters.
Yes! That's why I'm not crazy about blanket minimums like that. They don't connect with our real context, built environment, development patterns, market or affordable housing needs.
My main concern is that there is a provision for professional and neighborhood inputs/reviews on a project by project basis and not some knee jerk approval process that anything goes in the name of greater density. All for more density but needs to be done fairly and appropriately, not rammed down people's throats. This ordinance won't be around long if that happens and a citizen revolt against council members occurs. Everyone will be a loser.
I also note in the below article today that there is not currently a provision for taking into account resiliency. Makes no sense to increase density in prospective flood zones.
Seems the 30 day timeline for passing this ordinance is relatively short given its potential significant impacts and that is concerning. What is not being thought out and why the sudden rush to pass it?
QuoteMissing middle housing' bills would facilitate infill development of multifamily housing in Jacksonville
....Detractors say the bills are being rushed and would leave neighborhoods vulnerable to incompatible development. They say the bills ignore the work of an advisory board that has been working for more than a year on a comprehensive update of land use regulations....
....McGowan said the commissioners had not had enough time to thoroughly review the ordinances.
"I believe they deserve a little bit more scrutiny than just a few minutes," he said.
"By asking for this deferral, it's for the hope that we will spend the proper time on this."
Diamond said the bills were filed a month before the meeting....
...Peluso said Diamond's bills subvert the work of a volunteer advisory panel, the Land Development Regulations Update Committee.
The purpose of that group, Peluso said, was to propose legislation to increase housing and take into account the city's Resiliency Jacksonville study, which provides a strategy for addressing rising risks of flooding and extreme heat in Northeast Florida.
The group was formed in November 2023 by the mayor's office and Council. According to the planning staff report, the group is scheduled to submit a final report to Council in February....
....Diamond's legislation, Peluso said, "immediately runs to the finish line without other bodies that should have a say in this," including the Planning Commission....
....The committee hastily scheduled a Dec. 17 meeting in which it discussed several recommendations for amendments.
During the Dec. 17 session, Pierce said she had spoken to Diamond about several potential amendments to his ordinances. Among them, they involve adjustments to his proposed development maps; adding definitions of duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes; and reducing lot areas for some types of structures.
• Replacing the original Missing Middle Overlay with a map that excludes areas at high risk of flooding. Remaining in the overlay would be properties with lower risk of flooding and not within the boundaries of the coastal high hazard area; are close to multimodal transportation, are not part of an approved zoning overlay; and are connected to centralized water and sewer services.
• Expanding the Missing Middle Overlay's applicability to the surburban areas of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The original overlay applied to the urban priority area and urban area....
....Two of Diamond's bills, Ordinances 2024-0868 and 2024-0869, have drawn resistance from the city Planning and Development Department.
In a Nov. 27 staff report, city planners recommended denying the ordinances based on concerns related to the work of the Land Development Regulations Update Committee.
Planners said they supported the ordinance in concept but its effects would include:
• Negating an investment of "considerable time and money" in updating the regulations.
• Abandoning an opportunity to build resilience into future development.
• Exposing residents and property to increased climate hazards.
• Increasing the city's financial burden from storms.
The staff recommended approval of Ordinance 2024-0870 on condition that a provision to allow up to 30 units per acre be allowed only where density requirements of the comprehensive plan are met....
..."Missing middle housing is not just about density, it's about form and scale and livability," she said....
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/jan/03/missing-middle-housing-bills-would-facilitate-infill-development-of-multifamily-housing-in-jacksonville/
(https://media.yourobserver.com/img/photos/2025/01/03/missing_middle_overlay_t850.jpg?94beabde1e982a4eee8f83697e93b1d92468de7c)
I don't think anyone advocating for this bill wants to see more housing in flood plains or areas without city services. In fact, I'd argue this bill stems from the sentiment many developers have, which is to stay away from that entirely. Not sure if anyone is aware of the FDEP/USACOE dispute, but the whole idea of developing endangered/flooded area's is becoming less of a reality each year.
What is a problem, is the responses from the PD on this:
• Negating an investment of "considerable time and money" in updating the regulations.
Well actually, almost nothing was changed from the 2030 plan to the 2045 plan. There were some changed road classifications, we added in text for HDR & TOD's... but not much else besides changing some goals around. It is genuinely hard to argue that the changes between the two documents warrants "considerable time & money."
• Abandoning an opportunity to build resilience into future development.
Untrue, unless we just leave the bill as-is. Density allows for more to be done with less. It's not like I can magically circumnavigate storm water code now... in fact, might justify stormwater infrastructure to get more units. Obviously needs to be controlled, but currently, there are zero options. There are acres of property around the I-295 belt that can & should support higher density than 20du/acre beyond what is legally allowed today.
• Exposing residents and property to increased climate hazards.
Fear-mongering - like proposing a simple amendment to prevent flood zones won't solve this issue? Makes no sense... no stormwater drainage is being changed by these bills at all. It's not like we have decided we are changing all the allowed lot coverage ratios either?? Aren't those ratios well thought out - or were those made keeping in mind a good % of lots will just sit empty?
• Increasing the city's financial burden from storms.
Complete LOL. This city has show they could care less about prepping for storms unless it involves an expensive park. We have one of the least equipped urban areas for storm surges/hurricane's. I mean, we get a 3ft storm surge coming in, and Baptist is practically cut off from San Marco. Still, this point is just the other two points regurgitated in different verbiage.
--
Need to get some meaningful amendments put together to address the obvious issues in the bills, but planning needs to stop acting like 30du/acre density in certain areas & actually allowing 2,3,4 unit housing to be built (not just putting it in the code to look pretty) is going to implode the city. The effects will be minor & it might be the only bill passed in the last 10 years that *tries* to stop the endless urban sprawl that will devastate our city's piggy bank in the future.
Don't worry, the quant San Jose neighborhood won't be destroyed. That's a completely emotional response (in the article). What is someone gonna do? Go buy a $400k+ property to tear down & build a quad? That makes absolutely no sense for the type of RE market that exists in Jax. We have at least a decade or two before that is even a conversation...
Quote from: marcuscnelson on January 02, 2025, 08:38:21 PM
Reading all this, I am surprised to feel it may make sense to hand it to Rory Diamond; we don't agree on much.
I agree with lakelander's recommendations for historic neighborhoods, but broadly it has been long past time to start treating the urbanized region (particularly within the Beltway) as a real urban area instead of the island of Downtown surrounded by mostly low density suburbs. There are few good reasons to artificially limit density in the midst of a housing crisis with demand that is spreading into suburban counties and demanding billions in highway expansion, instead of growing the center of the region with existing infrastructure. I'd like to see some additional consideration towards things like whether we really need to mandate parking instead of allowing the market to decide and leveraging the investments already made in mass transit.
Looking at the Planning Department report, I think it demonstrates the issues that have long been seen with planning departments across the US. There's a lot of opinionation on the allowable density that trends much lower than the bill proposes, while simultaneously proposing to reduce the area that the bill would affect. I do see the value in making sure to not build in flood zones, of course, but if that is to be the case (which if it is, would presumably also affect lower-density development in those zones?) then the decrease in overall zoned capacity must be made up elsewhere. It strikes me as rather silly to see complaints in this report about "increased impact to public services" regarding parts of town where schools close for lack of students.
I hope that whatever changes are made to this bill preserve the premise that a city, especially one that cries out for investment as Jacksonville does, should be allowed to be a city.
Overhauling zoning is one of the Mayor's high priorities (it was one of the biggest outcomes from the transition teams before she even took office), and we've been working on that with various stakeholders for months now. This bill is mostly good in spirit, but unfortunately it did jump the gun. We've been able to introduce amendments that will improve it significantly, including the map that takes into account flood zones and other environmental issues. This won't be the last thing we do on zoning, but as a first step, it's not bad. Future bills driven by us will include opportunities for public input.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on January 03, 2025, 05:25:55 PM
I don't think anyone advocating for this bill wants to see more housing in flood plains or areas without city services. In fact, I'd argue this bill stems from the sentiment many developers have, which is to stay away from that entirely. Not sure if anyone is aware of the FDEP/USACOE dispute, but the whole idea of developing endangered/flooded area's is becoming less of a reality each year.
What is a problem, is the responses from the PD on this:
• Negating an investment of "considerable time and money" in updating the regulations.
Well actually, almost nothing was changed from the 2030 plan to the 2045 plan. There were some changed road classifications, we added in text for HDR & TOD's... but not much else besides changing some goals around. It is genuinely hard to argue that the changes between the two documents warrants "considerable time & money."
• Abandoning an opportunity to build resilience into future development.
Untrue, unless we just leave the bill as-is. Density allows for more to be done with less. It's not like I can magically circumnavigate storm water code now... in fact, might justify stormwater infrastructure to get more units. Obviously needs to be controlled, but currently, there are zero options. There are acres of property around the I-295 belt that can & should support higher density than 20du/acre beyond what is legally allowed today.
• Exposing residents and property to increased climate hazards.
Fear-mongering - like proposing a simple amendment to prevent flood zones won't solve this issue? Makes no sense... no stormwater drainage is being changed by these bills at all. It's not like we have decided we are changing all the allowed lot coverage ratios either?? Aren't those ratios well thought out - or were those made keeping in mind a good % of lots will just sit empty?
• Increasing the city's financial burden from storms.
Complete LOL. This city has show they could care less about prepping for storms unless it involves an expensive park. We have one of the least equipped urban areas for storm surges/hurricane's. I mean, we get a 3ft storm surge coming in, and Baptist is practically cut off from San Marco. Still, this point is just the other two points regurgitated in different verbiage.
--
Need to get some meaningful amendments put together to address the obvious issues in the bills, but planning needs to stop acting like 30du/acre density in certain areas & actually allowing 2,3,4 unit housing to be built (not just putting it in the code to look pretty) is going to implode the city. The effects will be minor & it might be the only bill passed in the last 10 years that *tries* to stop the endless urban sprawl that will devastate our city's piggy bank in the future.
Don't worry, the quant San Jose neighborhood won't be destroyed. That's a completely emotional response (in the article). What is someone gonna do? Go buy a $400k+ property to tear down & build a quad? That makes absolutely no sense for the type of RE market that exists in Jax. We have at least a decade or two before that is even a conversation...
The bill as originally filed didn't take account of flood risks, so it absolutely would have encouraged further density in flood prone areas. It would have all negative impacts the Planning Department identified and undermined the work they've spent months on. That's why we filed amendments to replace the original map with the one Planning developed that incorporates flood zones, compound flood modeling and other long-term projections. The amendments take care of much of those problems, so they turn it into a decent bill.
Quote from: fsu813 on January 03, 2025, 09:33:39 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 30, 2024, 10:22:21 PM
Will have to read to see how the MM Overlay meshes with other overlays - like RAP, Greater Arlington, and so on.
I believe existing zoning overlays would not be impacted by this bill.
I believe I was mistaken.
As is, this appears to supercede zoning overlays....
The infrastructure in beltway-adjacent Arlington is already overwhelmed, and the developments along Merrill and Tredinick are not even fully built out.
Added density here may make theoretical sense from a land use perspective, but I suggest the members of council who rammed an apartment complex through based on an admittedly faulty traffic study come take a drive through this part of town during daylight hours before suggesting we can support densifying the SFH neighborhoods in this area.
This isn't NIMBYism. If we can get transit or address the traffic issues, then I'm all for seeing this area densify around me.
Quote from: fsu813 on January 04, 2025, 06:15:13 PM
Quote from: fsu813 on January 03, 2025, 09:33:39 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 30, 2024, 10:22:21 PM
Will have to read to see how the MM Overlay meshes with other overlays - like RAP, Greater Arlington, and so on.
I believe existing zoning overlays would not be impacted by this bill.
I believe I was mistaken.
As is, this appears to supercede zoning overlays....
Yeah, by the map included in the original bill, it would have conflicted with existing overlays. But the Planning Department map used in the amendments specifically excludes areas with overlays. Another reason the amendments are necessary.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 04, 2025, 03:18:10 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on January 03, 2025, 05:25:55 PM
I don't think anyone advocating for this bill wants to see more housing in flood plains or areas without city services. In fact, I'd argue this bill stems from the sentiment many developers have, which is to stay away from that entirely. Not sure if anyone is aware of the FDEP/USACOE dispute, but the whole idea of developing endangered/flooded area's is becoming less of a reality each year.
What is a problem, is the responses from the PD on this:
• Negating an investment of "considerable time and money" in updating the regulations.
Well actually, almost nothing was changed from the 2030 plan to the 2045 plan. There were some changed road classifications, we added in text for HDR & TOD's... but not much else besides changing some goals around. It is genuinely hard to argue that the changes between the two documents warrants "considerable time & money."
• Abandoning an opportunity to build resilience into future development.
Untrue, unless we just leave the bill as-is. Density allows for more to be done with less. It's not like I can magically circumnavigate storm water code now... in fact, might justify stormwater infrastructure to get more units. Obviously needs to be controlled, but currently, there are zero options. There are acres of property around the I-295 belt that can & should support higher density than 20du/acre beyond what is legally allowed today.
• Exposing residents and property to increased climate hazards.
Fear-mongering - like proposing a simple amendment to prevent flood zones won't solve this issue? Makes no sense... no stormwater drainage is being changed by these bills at all. It's not like we have decided we are changing all the allowed lot coverage ratios either?? Aren't those ratios well thought out - or were those made keeping in mind a good % of lots will just sit empty?
• Increasing the city's financial burden from storms.
Complete LOL. This city has show they could care less about prepping for storms unless it involves an expensive park. We have one of the least equipped urban areas for storm surges/hurricane's. I mean, we get a 3ft storm surge coming in, and Baptist is practically cut off from San Marco. Still, this point is just the other two points regurgitated in different verbiage.
--
Need to get some meaningful amendments put together to address the obvious issues in the bills, but planning needs to stop acting like 30du/acre density in certain areas & actually allowing 2,3,4 unit housing to be built (not just putting it in the code to look pretty) is going to implode the city. The effects will be minor & it might be the only bill passed in the last 10 years that *tries* to stop the endless urban sprawl that will devastate our city's piggy bank in the future.
Don't worry, the quant San Jose neighborhood won't be destroyed. That's a completely emotional response (in the article). What is someone gonna do? Go buy a $400k+ property to tear down & build a quad? That makes absolutely no sense for the type of RE market that exists in Jax. We have at least a decade or two before that is even a conversation...
The bill as originally filed didn't take account of flood risks, so it absolutely would have encouraged further density in flood prone areas. It would have all negative impacts the Planning Department identified and undermined the work they've spent months on. That's why we filed amendments to replace the original map with the one Planning developed that incorporates flood zones, compound flood modeling and other long-term projections. The amendments take care of much of those problems, so they turn it into a decent bill.
Yes, my comments are with those changes in mind. I don't believe anyone in the development community would want to see higher density in flood zones & other prone areas. Those last three points from planning all really address one item that can be accounted (amended) for.
Either way, appreciate the fact that the mayor's office agrees that there needs to be "change" to the code - whatever that ends up being. The lack of any major changes for a while has created some holes in our code.
Does this supersede existing HOA covenants and restrictions?
Quote from: mvp on January 05, 2025, 04:01:39 PM
Does this supersede existing HOA covenants and restrictions?
No, or future ones.