Is Riverside/Avondale Ready For Mellow Mushroom?

[Captain Zissou]

Quote from someone earlier:
TILTs (Tax Increment Local Transfers) are a theoretical way that NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) homeowners can be bought off so that they stop blocking development via strict zoning, HOAs, lobbying city council, etc

I added the bold print to point out that this author is simply uninformed:  Riverside Avondale is THE MOST LENIENT neighborhood in the city for new development, with 50% of the parking requirements needed in other areas of Jacksonville.   

Yes, we are opposed to developers who want even further reductions in parking.  But please stop this whining about how we are blocking growth.  Obey the law and we're okay, thank you.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the entire city should have uniform density equal to that of Mandarin, Southside, etc...  Avondale requires fewer parking spaces than the Southside because Avondale was built in a time when people didn't fully rely on cars to get places.  It would be inappropriate and out of scale with the neighborhood to require the Southside's parking policies be enforced here.  While Avondale is easier for new development in terms of a parking requirement, it is far more strict in terms of design, scale, addressing the street, and fitting into the context of the neighborhood.  It is really an apples to oranges comparison that would only a simpleton would actually use/believe. 

This is a historic neighborhood that has previously supported much higher density than is currently in place and can support greater density in the future.  The main problems come from the city using southside-esque parking/traffic solutions in a historic neighborhood.  Even if MM doesn't come in, the parking situation will continue to get worse until we implement a greater diversity of transit options, including fixed rail.

[Kay]

Quote from someone earlier:
TILTs (Tax Increment Local Transfers) are a theoretical way that NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) homeowners can be bought off so that they stop blocking development via strict zoning, HOAs, lobbying city council, etc

I added the bold print to point out that this author is simply uninformed:  Riverside Avondale is THE MOST LENIENT neighborhood in the city for new development, with 50% of the parking requirements needed in other areas of Jacksonville.   

Yes, we are opposed to developers who want even further reductions in parking.  But please stop this whining about how we are blocking growth.  Obey the law and we're okay, thank you.

The issue here is that under the original overlay (law), Mellow Mushroom was not reducing the amount of parking.  That is why a new law was written increasing parking requirements to specifically block the type of growth Mellow Mushroom represented.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,15403.0.html

The best way to handle this is to post the facts. Unfortunately, the facts support the idea that the current leadership in Riverside is indeed against new growth they deem unworthy or that they fear.

Strider, Unfortunately you have your facts wrong.  The proposed Mellow Mushroom development was not affected by the recent change to the Overlay.  First, the buildings are noncontributing structures so Mellow was always required to provide 50% of the parking.  Second, even if the structures were contributing, Mellow filed its applications prior to the legislation being introduced, therefore it wouldn't have affected them.

[KEGreene1]

I agree with a neighbor that stickers, or parking passes, or fees to park are all just taxes designed to drive people away. We the residents and the store owners will find a way to co-exist and thrive. It may not be pretty, but we will find a way to solve the problem and compromise.

I saw this Harrisburg, PA last month (Resident Only Parking).  I thought this was a great idea.  You tow a few cars and it will change people's habits. 

[Bewler]

Forget Mellow Mush-shrune, what hoidy toidy Avondale needs are a few Dollar Generals, a Tractor Supply, an Aarons rental, and a buy-here/ pay-here car lot at the corner of Dancy and Park.  Maybe the flea market currently located on Blanding, by the ole drive-in could find a new Avondale location.  How bout moving Shep's from Normandy to Avondale?  Bring some real character to the place.

Run or ruin your own neighborhood, but not mine, please and thank you.

Amen, if you don't live in Avondale, you really have no dog in this fight, thanks for your 2 cents, but we as neighbors can come up with our own solutions.

Your post indicates you have little idea what Avondale is.

Or it indicates that he was joking.

[cline]

I agree with a neighbor that stickers, or parking passes, or fees to park are all just taxes designed to drive people away. We the residents and the store owners will find a way to co-exist and thrive. It may not be pretty, but we will find a way to solve the problem and compromise.

I saw this Harrisburg, PA last month (Resident Only Parking).  I thought this was a great idea.  You tow a few cars and it will change people's habits. 

I wonder what the merchants thoughts are on Parking Permits.  At the meeting at Grace, the owner of Blue Fish stated that his patrons complain that they cannot find parking (which is odd considering he has his own lot).  I would find it hard to believe having permits would help this situation. 

[JeffreyS]

Just ate in Avondale. Even with two fire trucks parked in the middle of the street at the shoppes we pulled into one of several open spots and walked the 40 or so steps into the restaurant.

The myth of the parking problems in Riverside have been grossly over stated.

[fieldafm]

I agree with a neighbor that stickers, or parking passes, or fees to park are all just taxes designed to drive people away. We the residents and the store owners will find a way to co-exist and thrive. It may not be pretty, but we will find a way to solve the problem and compromise.

I saw this Harrisburg, PA last month (Resident Only Parking).  I thought this was a great idea.  You tow a few cars and it will change people's habits. 

I wonder what the merchants thoughts are on Parking Permits.  At the meeting at Grace, the owner of Blue Fish stated that his patrons complain that they cannot find parking (which is odd considering he has his own lot).  I would find it hard to believe having permits would help this situation.

The irony is that without better alternatives to address parking mgmt and supply, residential parking permits are going to kill the existing businesses.  One of those laws of unintended consequences people are just glossing over. 

[strider]

Quote from someone earlier:
TILTs (Tax Increment Local Transfers) are a theoretical way that NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) homeowners can be bought off so that they stop blocking development via strict zoning, HOAs, lobbying city council, etc

I added the bold print to point out that this author is simply uninformed:  Riverside Avondale is THE MOST LENIENT neighborhood in the city for new development, with 50% of the parking requirements needed in other areas of Jacksonville.   

Yes, we are opposed to developers who want even further reductions in parking.  But please stop this whining about how we are blocking growth.  Obey the law and we're okay, thank you.

The issue here is that under the original overlay (law), Mellow Mushroom was not reducing the amount of parking.  That is why a new law was written increasing parking requirements to specifically block the type of growth Mellow Mushroom represented.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,15403.0.html

The best way to handle this is to post the facts. Unfortunately, the facts support the idea that the current leadership in Riverside is indeed against new growth they deem unworthy or that they fear.

Strider, Unfortunately you have your facts wrong.  The proposed Mellow Mushroom development was not affected by the recent change to the Overlay.  First, the buildings are noncontributing structures so Mellow was always required to provide 50% of the parking.  Second, even if the structures were contributing, Mellow filed its applications prior to the legislation being introduced, therefore it wouldn't have affected them.

Thanks for correcting the fact of the non-contributing structures.  However, I am a bit confused by two things here.  The first is the part of the overlay posted below, originally posted by someone else as the part involving Mellow Mushrooms plans.

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.

The second is the fact that the new law's summary written by the city referenced the Mellow Mushroom's type (actually listed Kickbacks) parking issues as a reason for the law.  Makes one wonder why it was even written if Mellow Mushroom's plans were already within the bounds of the NEW law...

Yes, I was fully aware that the new law would not effect Mellow Mushroom.

Yep, I can certainly see whether Riverside's leadership is for or against (certain types of) new development or not.  Can you?

[oxymaroon]

There are a variety of reasonable solutions to this issue, but they all require compromise by one or more parties. There is also a need for certain players to accept accountability for their choices and actions.

I live in the neighborhood, but do not live in the area immediately affected by traffic and noise created by the Shops. I love the neighborhood and choose to live here rather than any other part of town.

I find it disingenuous to claim that Avondale doesn’t already have a parking problem. It is also unrealistic to offer as a solution 50 seat restaurants â€" the economics simply do not work on that scale. The local property owners â€" both residential and commercial â€" deserve to be heard, but the neighborhood as a whole also must be considered.
Whether you like the MM concept is immaterial. We live in a free market society with laws governing private property and its uses. If the owner of the property MM wants to occupy wishes to lease space to MM or any other business then that is the owner’s right, pending any laws that prevent them from doing so. In this case MM is not bared from the area due to zoning or any other laws that I am aware of (I realize that there is an after the fact effort to limit the use but that is simply unreasonable to both MM and the property owner (s)). So if MM has the right to open a restaurant or car wash or pawn shop based upon the applicable laws then how can we deny them their rights? I think that MM has been very open and obliging to the community in their request for feedback and a sincere desire to provide information to the public.

The parking problem in Avondale is here today and needs a resolution. However, this strategy of “I am already here, it’s the next guy’s problem” isn’t going to work. I am shocked at the lack of forward thinking by those who claim to be the most affected parties. I hear nothing of substance from the shop owners or the residents immediately adjacent about the need to solve parking. I only hear MM is evil and they must be stopped. Hyperbole and witch hunts. I am starting to believe that this is an artifice for an anti-MM agenda. I have no idea why all parties wouldn’t seek a resolution to the parking problem for the benefit of all involved and the greater neighborhood.

The argument that MM will bring in a “party” crowd seems duplicitous to me. Surely these people have been into Monty’s or seen the activity outside of the Casbah late at night or even the Brick. I know the response will be something like “we don’t need any more of that type of people than we already have.” So now we are sitting in judgment of who should or shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy our neighborhood? What is the criterion for those activities or people that should be allowed in the neighborhood and who gets to determine the criteria? Should we base the criteria on appearance, their choice of entertainment, the way they dress? How many tattoos, piercings, buttoned down shirts, country club logos, short skirts, high heels or business suits are acceptable?

The claim that the Shops are now suddenly causing a decrease in property values or other gripes about the activities in the Shops by residential property owners are simply hypocritical. Those whose voice seems loudest are those who live adjacent to the Shops. I realize that the economic activity has grown in the Shops over the last few years, but those people bought with full knowledge of the proximity of the Shops to their homes. However, they should not be forced to endure blocked driveways or litter or any other unreasonable inconvenience due to their proximity to the Shops. I would wager that many bought BECAUSE of the proximity of the Shops to their property. These buildings have been there, were there and will be there. Empty or filled, which is preferable or best for the neighborhood? Which will most affect property values negatively?  What I hear these people saying is they want a certain type of economic activity that fits their narrow view of what is good for them. A free market doesn’t work that way.

Conversely the retail property owners are the ones who seem to have no voice. These people bought property as an investment believing their rights were protected and now find their freedom being curtailed and the value of their investment reduced due to the proposed moratorium on the use of their property.

I firmly believe that the economic impact of successful business on other nearby businesses is positive. Success begets success which in turn will only improve the whole. A thriving business environment in the Shops helps all those with a vested interest in Avondale.

I do not understand this “all or nothing” approach that some seem to be taking to growth or use. Whether its MM today or 7-11 tomorrow someone is going to utilize this space and when they do its going to be with the goal of making money and to make money businesses need customers. So any use of the space will increase traffic in our neighborhood. All of which brings us back to the idea that Avondale needs a long term plan to manage traffic and parking.

In my opinion the only realistic solution to the parking problem is to modify Boone Park. It goes largely unused other than the playground area. The remainder of the park between St Johns Avenue and Herschel Street is a creepy and over grown. In my mind a park should have trees, but it should also have sun light and room to throw a ball or have a picnic or fly a kite. Boone Park has none of these things as it is currently configured. Why not solve two problems? Get buy-in from the Shop owners, City and MM to fund a parking lot on the St Johns side of the park and rebuild a new and better playground and bright open area in the remaining 60% of the park? Charge money to park there and use that money to pay back the investors in the short term and to fund the park and other improvements to the Shops  long term. If properly landscaped, buffered and configured it could be a boon (sorry couldn’t resist the pun) to the entire neighborhood and solve the parking dilemma immediately.

I know some will want to protect the “natural” environment, but most of the trees are nothing but scrub pines and this is not how the park was planned originally. The park we have today is largely the result of zero management and nature reclaiming the land. It does not function well and it has no historical significance as configured. I see no other economically viable, historically acceptable solution given the limitations of the local geography than to modify the park. A parking garage simply will not work. Stopping growth is not possible. Tearing down houses to make way for a parking lot is not feasible or good for the neighborhood. So instead of attacking each other and looking for reasons not to adapt, let’s look for a solution that benefits the most people and the neighborhood as a whole and lets be fair and realistic while doing it.

I am not in favor or against MM as a member of the shops. That said I would go there if it were an option. I do believe in property rights, free enterprise and entrepreneurial people.  I also believe in being fair to the property owners, both immediately adjacent to the shops and throughout the neighborhood. Unfortunately, I have friends on both sides of the debate. As someone said earlier it’s no fun when it’s your ox is being gored. However, a few months ago everyone was up in arms that 7-11 was coming in to the Shops, today its MM, tomorrow it’s going to be something else. We cannot block economic evolution so we must adapt to it. Whether it’s a redefinition of Boone Park or a different solution, we must address the extant problem and plan for the future. I would rather work with MM today than face someone much less concerned with the fabric of the neighborhood who wants to impose their will on the Shops regardless of the impact on the neighborhood.

There seems to be much misinformation and confusion about many facets of the current debate. What is or isn’t being proposed, how big, how many seats, etc. I would hope someone would find a way to get the unembellished facts out to the public. Not a single side of the story, but the facts, the whole story. Maybe this responsibility should fall to Jim Love as he in effect represents all parties and the neighborhood.  I am 100% confident that people are reacting to false or misleading information on both sides that is created by ignorance and the “I heard…” or “Sally told Bob…”method of communication. Let’s figure out what the truth is and address that instead of arguing about gossip.

[CG7]

I don't believe Mr. Boone donated that land for a parking lot. I don't think moving the fence a little to accomadate parking is a bad idea. But a parking lot definitely is a bad idea.

[cline]

The claim that the Shops are now suddenly causing a decrease in property values or other gripes about the activities in the Shops by residential property owners are simply hypocritical. Those whose voice seems loudest are those who live adjacent to the Shops. I realize that the economic activity has grown in the Shops over the last few years, but those people bought with full knowledge of the proximity of the Shops to their homes.

This exact claim was brought up at the meeting at Grace.  In fact, it might have been Mark Anderson from the We Love Avondale group who said it- I don't remember exactly what the person's name was.  But basically, they said that they bought their house in 2005 or 2006, put money into it to fix it up and now it is not worth anywhere near what they paid for it.  They tried to make a connection that any increase in restaurants (seating) at the shop will cause more problems which will, in turn, cause their property value to drop further.  They made no mention of the fact that the home lost value because they paid too much to begin with.

I don't believe Mr. Boone donated that land for a parking lot. I don't think moving the fence a little to accomadate parking is a bad idea. But a parking lot definitely is a bad idea.

I'm not saying that Boone Park would be an ideal solution, but I'm pretty sure they did this same thing to provide parking for the playground in the northern part of Boone Park by the tennis courts.  A small parking lot was carved out.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

This talk of parking at/near Boone Park is making me nauseous. 

What you're proposing is that I have to park at Boone Park, but I want to eat a Biscottis or Bluefish, and I'm vehemently against walking that far just to enjoy some mediocre food. 

Hell, I might as well park at Grace Baptist....   

Wait a sec....   

[Captain Zissou]

Oxymaroon: Great post.  i share the majority of your view points.  I like the idea of adding parking at Boone Park, but in an angled parking or perpindicular parking set up.  What would be more important in my opinion is strengthening the link between the park and the Shoppes.  I live on the western edge of the park at Herschel and I have often walked to the Shoppes using the park.  The park itself is safe, as is Van Wert.  The only area where I feel unsafe is the sidewalk between Van Wert and the Shoppes.  I often just walk in St Johns to stay in the light.  If better lighting and sidewalks were put in place and the pedestrian link between the park and the retail area was established, I think people would natuarally start to park at the park.  If this happens, I think redesigning the parking facilities there to include angle parking on the entire stretch of Van Wert would be the next step.  I don't think a parking lot is needed.

In terms of redesigning the park, I agree 100%.  The area is useful for nothing but allowing your dog to relieve itself.  The pinestraw covered ground and lack of open space make playing games there dangerous.

[bill]

The claim that the Shops are now suddenly causing a decrease in property values or other gripes about the activities in the Shops by residential property owners are simply hypocritical. Those whose voice seems loudest are those who live adjacent to the Shops. I realize that the economic activity has grown in the Shops over the last few years, but those people bought with full knowledge of the proximity of the Shops to their homes.

This exact claim was brought up at the meeting at Grace.  In fact, it might have been Mark Anderson from the We Love Avondale group who said it- I don't remember exactly what the person's name was.  But basically, they said that they bought their house in 2005 or 2006, put money into it to fix it up and now it is not worth anywhere near what they paid for it.  They tried to make a connection that any increase in restaurants (seating) at the shop will cause more problems which will, in turn, cause their property value to drop further.  They made no mention of the fact that the home lost value because they paid too much to begin with.

So when they bought their houses were they unaware that the Shops existed?

[PeeJayEss]

I wonder what the merchants thoughts are on Parking Permits.  At the meeting at Grace, the owner of Blue Fish stated that his patrons complain that they cannot find parking (which is odd considering he has his own lot).  I would find it hard to believe having permits would help this situation.

I didn't know Blue Fish had that many patrons that parking would be a serious issue. Aside from brunch, it seems to be the "Brick's too crowded, let's go to that blue place" place.