Is Riverside/Avondale Ready For Mellow Mushroom?

[WmNussbaum]

I've just returned from the Town Hall Meeting. The overwhelming majority were opposed to MM - possibly more opposed because of its size. Size matters.

I do have a nicely maintained home on Richmond St. and can and do walk to the Shoppes. The problem is the hordes from outside the 'hood who come here and clog the streets. And I'll bet it's not the locals who leave beer cans and other rubbish on the curbs, in the streets, in the yards, etc. So walkability is not the point. The point, as the owner of Biscotti's put it to the assembly is "don't try to put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box."

Like I said this morning. something smaller would be nice.

[fieldafm]

Here is the section in the Overlay that addresses parking for commercial buildings in a defined commercial area:

(2) Parking Requirements.
(a) Retail sales or service establishments and single family residential uses located in contributing structures within an identified commercial character area shall have zero(0) parking requirements. Any expansion of contributing structures, after the date of the adoption of this Subpart shall provide 50% of the required parking for the expansion pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use. Additionally, zero (0) parking shall be required of new structures when such structures are built to the same or less than the square footage of a non-conforming structure if
that structure is being replaced. However, all adjacent on street parking shall be brought into compliance with Section656.399.23(2)(b)(i-iv) and Table 4. Otherwise, the number of
spaces for retail sales and service establishments and multifamily uses shall be 50% of the required number of spaces pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use, provided there are no additional parking credits applied under Section 656.607(d) of the Zoning Code. However contiguous on-street parking may be provided consistent with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i-iv) and Table 4.

I'd argue that beyond the parking requirements, which this building will appear to go above and beyond meeting, this re-use fits in with the purpose and intent of the Overlay and goes even further by developing a public square and bicycle parking for possibly as high as 60 bikes to be shared by the entire commercial district(something the Overlay does not presently require, but should). 



As a point of referance, the picture above showing potential underutilized overflow parking along Van Wert, underutilized off street parking that can be converted to stacked parking arrangments durring off peak hours and the bikes tied to such things as street signs and trees... were all taken b/w 7:45 and 8:00PM.

If the service station is a 1964 building (per the article), how is it then a contributing structure and how would the above reference apply if it is non-contributing?

Two points on the photos - Van Wert parking (Boone Park) is only allowed until 10PM.  The other photo shows a private parking area behind stores owned by other landlords, this is not municipal parking being depicted and is not available for legal "overflow" parking absent consent of the owners.

I guess we will hear more tonight.

The point being made (besides how similar adaptive reuse projects have greatly contributed to the quality of life in their respective neighborhoods.. Yes neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Virginia Highland, etc share many of the same charestics as Riverside/Avondale) is to explore alternatives and allowing for density bonuses that encourage things that benefits the neighborhood.  Other similarly built environments do utilize off street parking for stacked/tandem parking through the use of valet services on private property, modify existing public parking areas to allow for overflow parking during specific hours, reduce stall dimensions for compact car parking, allow for variances provided certain transit programs are funded by the developer and allow for things such as substituting bike parking for a pre-defined portion of automobile parking. 

Regardless of your personal preferance for Mellow Mushroom, sticking your head in the sand is not a prudent course of action. 

[JFman00]

I've just returned from the Town Hall Meeting. The overwhelming majority were opposed to MM - possibly more opposed because of its size. Size matters.

I do have a nicely maintained home on Richmond St. and can and do walk to the Shoppes. The problem is the hordes from outside the 'hood who come here and clog the streets. And I'll bet it's not the locals who leave beer cans and other rubbish on the curbs, in the streets, in the yards, etc. So walkability is not the point. The point, as the owner of Biscotti's put it to the assembly is "don't try to put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box."

Like I said this morning. something smaller would be nice.

I don't remember seeing many public garbage cans, if any, at Shops, Five Points, or San Marco.

[JHAT76]

I've just returned from the Town Hall Meeting. The overwhelming majority were opposed to MM - possibly more opposed because of its size. Size matters.

I do have a nicely maintained home on Richmond St. and can and do walk to the Shoppes. The problem is the hordes from outside the 'hood who come here and clog the streets. And I'll bet it's not the locals who leave beer cans and other rubbish on the curbs, in the streets, in the yards, etc. So walkability is not the point. The point, as the owner of Biscotti's put it to the assembly is "don't try to put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box."

Like I said this morning. something smaller would be nice.

Would be curious to know how many times beer cans and rubbish has made it down to Richmond St.  It doesn't seem likely that parkers are going 3 - 4 + blocks toward the river to park on Richmond St which has awkward on street parking.  In fact the times I have walked there in the evening I rarely see more than 1 - 2 cars parked street side and those are home owners.  Also, I don't know of any restaurant at the Shoppes that sell beer in cans, that you can walk out with other than West Inn liquor store, and I see more local residents buying there so I might look to blame locals for that.

I live on Riverside near Boone Park.  Have never had an issue with trash or cans on my street other than big events like XMas in Avondale and that was one can left on the curb.  In fact, the worst thing about parking on my section of the block is that a few neighbors have more cars than legal drivers and they don't have driveways. 

I am excited about Mellow Mushroom.  Will walk over when I want a pizza and my kids with love it.  Never once have I had a problem walking at night, even as late as 10:00 PM - 12:00AM.  I say the solution is to be a leader in transit options.  Maybe even a bus/fake trolley circular like a college campus that connects the Shoppes, Park and King, and Five Points to connect the whole area.  Also additional JSO patrols, ON FOOT or BIKE, would be a great addition to all 3 areas.

[simms3]

^^Great.  That's proof in the pudding and all so true.  And the biggest danger to having something happen to your house as I said before is the owner his or herself (if you don't take care of your home).

I don't foresee transit anytime soon, but as has been discussed I can only picture a streetcar making a one-directional loop between downtown/Brooklyn and Riverside, Park and King, and Avondale.  Having a fake trolley is just not such a good idea.  I contend that cabs are always a good thing as long as they are heavily regulated so that people don't get ripped off.  Cabs need to be in use a lot more.  When I come to the Shops to drink when I'm in town, I do not want to see a bunch of cars parked around and a bunch of drunks stumbling to their cars at 2.  That's just disaster waiting to happen every weekend.  I would rather see a line of cabs.

[strider]

 AvonD:   If the service station is a 1964 building (per the article), how is it then a contributing structure and how would the above reference apply if it is non-contributing?

Once an area is made a historic District, everyone, unless the property is specifically excluded from the district, has to follow the rules that govern that Historic District.  http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/community-planning-division/default/riverside-avdale-district-map.aspx 

A building built in 1904, 1964 or even 2004,  has the same basic rules to follow.  Without the overlay, the rules would be both the Historic Guidelines and the regular old zoning codes, which are more in line with the needs of suburbia.  The overly simply makes an attempt at changing those zoning codes to be a bit more urban, at least that is the theory.

The main difference between redoing a 1904 building and one like this one built in 1964 would be tax credits are not available and obviously they have  more freedom in style.

If I had been at that meeting about this, I believe the most common thing I would have seen would have been fear.  Fear of change, fear of who might come into their community, fear of finally having to realize they live in a real urban setting, with the bad that comes with that as well as the good they want. 

[cline]

I've just returned from the Town Hall Meeting. The overwhelming majority were opposed to MM - possibly more opposed because of its size. Size matters.

I do have a nicely maintained home on Richmond St. and can and do walk to the Shoppes. The problem is the hordes from outside the 'hood who come here and clog the streets. And I'll bet it's not the locals who leave beer cans and other rubbish on the curbs, in the streets, in the yards, etc. So walkability is not the point. The point, as the owner of Biscotti's put it to the assembly is "don't try to put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound box."

Like I said this morning. something smaller would be nice.

I don't remember seeing many public garbage cans, if any, at Shops, Five Points, or San Marco.

There are at least 8 garbage cans at the Shoppes that I know of.

[AvonD]

Surprised so few comments post MM presentation last night?  There were over 200 in attendance. The developer presented their plan and lo and behold they will be seeking exceptions to zoning to address parking deficiencies (and perhaps other issues) via a PUD process.  From MM's lawyer's presentation, they do not have sufficent parking spaces under the current zoning code and overlay. So this will fall squarley in the hands of the city council now.

The developer's plan shows 14 parking spaces, and they will need many more.  Of note, none of these spaces appear to be net new spaces, they are just moving 10 from the interior of the lot to the street (Ingleside and St Johns) by eliminating the curb cuts (the other four are spaces in the back alley).

A "traffic study" is being proposed (which will only be partially paid for by the developer, the rest by CoJ) in an effort to find a "solution" to the "problem" and some suggestions offered were permit only parking, more no parking signs in front of residences, making some streets around Avondale one way only, moving the fence at Boone Park to allow 90 degree parking the whole length of Van Wert and some kind of valet parking scheme.

The developer here could have chosen to propose a smaller plan that would not require any special treatment and that complies with existing zoning and overlay criteria, but they have not (i.e. the 'town space is 84 seats existing now). Of note, the developer would not answer directly the many requests from the audience to consider a smaller scale operation.

So the question remains - is it fair to allow exceptions to developers to solve "problems" that only are created by their own site plans and business intentions?  Is it fair to have the existing business and residential community bear the burden of these exceptions?  Is it fair to then deny the next developer's request for exceptions?  If so, why?

So stay tuned, the PUD process will be interesting to follow.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'm confused, though that's normal, but isn't the parking lot that everyone keeps referring to private property?

Isn't it only being used a parking lot because there's not currently a tenant?

Why are those 'parking spots' being counted against the developer when the previous owners could have very well fenced off the property and not allowed anyone to park there from the beginning?

[cline]

is it fair to allow exceptions to developers to solve "problems" that only are created by their own site plans and business intentions?

I don't think it's really fair to blame these "problems" on the MM site plan.  The perceived parking "problems" have not been caused by MM (after all, they haven't even opened yet)- they are ongoing.  Might MM contribute to the problem? Possibly.  However, every business and merchant in the Shoppes helps to contribute to the parking issue- whether they be a boutique or whether they are a restaurant. The last one in should not bear the burden of everyone. (fair-share comes to mind).

I'm with Simms though.  This helps to illuminate the imperative need for other forms of transportation.  We can't keep making decisions based on auto capacity and parking.  It's not sustainable.

I was at the meeting last night.  Someone made a really interesting statement saying that basically we don't need revitalization.  I thought that was odd.  I would rather see the gas station "revitalized" into something that contributes rather than have it sit the way it is.  But maybe that's just me.

[Captain Zissou]

I'm confused, though that's normal, but isn't the parking lot that everyone keeps referring to private property?

Isn't it only being used a parking lot because there's not currently a tenant?

Why are those 'parking spots' being counted against the developer when the previous owners could have very well fenced off the property and not allowed anyone to park there from the beginning?

YES.  It is only because the property owner is a saint that anyone can park there in the first place.  However, it's the rallying cry of the citizens that oppose MM.  The real situation is that MM is adding 14 spaces, bike racks for the whole strip, and a public plaza.  What other business owners on the strip have done that??  MM will be no more of a burden to the strip than the Brick, who has done nothing to help in any way.  Brick just has tenure so it gets overlooked.

This is just the opposite of the city's old concurrency system.  The first person to build on a street pays the price, and the rest just enjoy the free ride.  Now, the first ones in get all the free parking and the last one is responsible for the tab.  Why are biscotti's, the brick, mojo's, and Casbah not equally responsible for the parking problem??

[Tacachale]

I don't understand how this wouldn't fit with the overlay as it stands? They don't seem to be adding beyond the buildings that are there.

In the end there are only so many ways this can go, in Avondale as in other parts of the core: knock down buildings for parking lots, artificially restrict businesses and keep buildings shuttered, or think smart and start work on alternative transportation solutions. Bike racks and better utilizing existing parking is a good short term start; public transit will be a good long term solution, but only if we start thinking about it now instead of tying our own hands.

[Tonyinchicago]

So many thoughtful opinions have been expressed in this thread.  Now, fast forward 12 months and imagine what parking will be like with an additional 100 cars in the area.  I wonder how many of these opinions will be changed.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

How hard would it be to use the parking facilities at FCSJ Thurs - Sat after 8:00pm with a dedicated shuttle?

There is both garage parking and open lot. 

I'm not sure how you could handle funding, but we're talking hundred of parking spots less than 1.5 miles away.

[thelakelander]

is it fair to allow exceptions to developers to solve "problems" that only are created by their own site plans and business intentions?

I don't think it's really fair to blame these "problems" on the MM site plan.  The perceived parking "problems" have not been caused by MM (after all, they haven't even opened yet)- they are ongoing.  Might MM contribute to the problem? Possibly.  However, every business and merchant in the Shoppes helps to contribute to the parking issue- whether they be a boutique or whether they are a restaurant. The last one in should not bear the burden of everyone. (fair-share comes to mind).

Any residential household with a car parked in public ROW also is a contributor to the perceived problem because the historic district wasn't designed for cars to serve as the dominant transportation choice.