Roost Cafe and Coffee shop trying to open on Oak St?

[tufsu1]

^ I will save the pontificating for the Florida Bar....here's a nice summary in case you're interested in learning something

https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/F5933C5B28EAC56D8525769B0066BC77

[Gators312]

Its really quite simple, there are the "haves" and the "have nots". the haves have very nice lobbyists and the have nots get screwed by the haves, should I go on?

Would you characterize "We Love Avondale" as the have nots? 

[bill]

 

Seeing as how you are an expert, why don't you pontificate "land use regulation and property rights" to the delight of all on the board. I want to be dazzled by the smartest people in the room.

I would settle for not constantly hearing from the dumbest person in the room.

[Know Growth]

What's more is that it was not a RAP or Jim Love decision, but the City and Planning departments that are siding with the developer. Jim Love voted against it as 150 seat barnyard, and RAP suggested the quaint 60 seat option. But the Planning Committee, stacked   I do think that both Love and Boyer may have had political reasons for not supporting this (RAP).
[/quote]



Beyond pure politics. Jim Love knows that RAP could successfully appeal/oppose inappropriate city council decision via credible "Standing" and knowledge of and propensity to defend existing Overlay et al legal directive in the face of what is only,legally,a developer "Request".

This was the case with Mellow Mushroom/We Love Avondale and St Johns Village/Arden LLC. Relatively unlimited $$$ backing behind commitment to credible appeal.

City Council does not want to usher a "Train Wreck",approving applicant request only to have the process go to Appeal and have Citizen opposition upheld. After all,that would really be a negative for "Development" 

Roost Cafe Applicant Attorney representative Steve Diebenow also represented Mellow Mushroom and St. Johns Village. For the longest time,some on the 'opposition' side were quite pleased with this attorney I heard described as "dull tack". But bringing one substantial deviation request after another could result in an eventual "win"...Precedence!

The "Roost" request might be,true to Title......more organic,there might not be the citizen monetary resources or other attributes present in recent past Requests,the heavy lifting might fall more on the shoulders of RAP.

Folks complain that three minutes at the public hearing podium ain't enough to recite entreaty- in fact,for a citizen with clear intent to position for possible effective appeal,establish Standing,three minutes is more than enough.
When you are in know you can spot 'em.

[Ming The Merciless]

Seeing as how you are an expert, why don't you pontificate "land use regulation and property rights" to the delight of all on the board. I want to be dazzled by the smartest people in the room.

I would settle for not constantly hearing from the dumbest person in the room.

^for the win

[mtraininjax]

Standing,three minutes is more than enough.

Good idea, perhaps a time limit on the grand standing out here as well.

Probably will not happen now that the Neighbors and PROUD got royally screwed....

http://www.news4jax.com/news/city-council-approves-rezoning-for-riverside-restaurant

[bencrix]

Here's the thing - the zoning change is on the dirt, not directly with the business owner.

I think this is the one objection to this thing that really merits soul-searching. It is not a good precedent.

But this should include designating Oak street as "residential character" in the Overlay in the first place when it is was a historically a streetcar corridor (complete w/ some of the best examples of mixed use architecture w/in hundreds of miles), subsequently zoned in such a way as to encourage non-residential uses and now primarily NOT residential in character.

Isn't this the seed from which the bad precedent has grown?

[Kay]

Here's the thing - the zoning change is on the dirt, not directly with the business owner.

I think this is the one objection to this thing that really merits soul-searching. It is not a good precedent.

But this should include designating Oak street as "residential character" in the Overlay in the first place when it is was a historically a streetcar corridor (complete w/ some of the best examples of mixed use architecture w/in hundreds of miles), subsequently zoned in such a way as to encourage non-residential uses and now primarily NOT residential in character.

Isn't this the seed from which the bad precedent has grown?

The part of Oak St., this block included, that is designated residential character is at least 65% residential.  The office, as well as the very limited retail, exist in harmony with the residential.  The gym and the incoming restaurant intensify this area which is unfair to the people who live there.

[bencrix]

Does 65% residential along a former streetcar corridor constitute residential character? Why? How do the number of vacant / neglected properties (both commercial and residential) along this corridor reflect harmony? The overlay in this regard is flawed and the source of legitimate conflict. The trend is for it to be spot-zoned into irrelevance. I would prefer that the neighborhood begin the long, difficult process of modernizing this admirable, but now out-dated document. A new, common vision for growth management in the area is required to support historic preservation, diversity, sustainability, investment, etc. 

[Steve]

I'd say 65% residential constitutes "primarily residential". Historically, the commercial buildings were the only commercial in the corridor. Just because a streetcar ran down the street doesn't mean it's not residential. Many streets that had streetcars, like Ingleside and Aberdeen had streetcars and both were historically (as well as now) residential.

Outside of the commercial building on Oak, the commercial came on to Oak when the city in the late 50's or early 60's zoned nearly all of Riverside as Commercial.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

From another thead:

Nope. No parking

And a million voices were silenced in 4 syllables...

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

You can make money with a restaurant.  The higher quality the food, the smaller your margins. 

You can make exponentially better money with a restaurant that serves liquor. 

Not only does it allow the chef a little more leeway to be creative in his menu, but it also offers the restaurant a fighting chance to sustain itself past that dreaded 3 year mark.

The majority of these owners don't want large restaurants just to own a large restaurant;  They just want to hit the minimum seating threshold to be allowed to sell liquor and make a decent profit.

There are quite a few posters on here who have been banging this drum for a while, but I guess it bears repeating.

A lot of the energy put into fighting these perceived:  parking issues, too-large development issues, lack of existing build-out issues, etc... would be put to much better use in fighting the state county* minimums for liquor sales rather than fighting the entrepreneurs who are only trying to meet the threshold of a made-up number that is set too high to be realistically achieved in the majority of re-build work in a neighborhood such as Riverside.

* Correction per another poster

[mtraininjax]

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211406-jacksonville-roost-debate-not-yet

JACKSONVILLE ROOST DEBATE NOT OVER YET

Attention: Steve Diebenow. More billable hours are headed your way on this Roost issue. But this time, in a different venue.

should be endless summer entertainment!

[UNFurbanist]

Just wondering by why is FL pol writing on this? It's really not state news worthy. Neighborhood controversy? Sure. But I feel bad for the people in Tampa or Orlando who are being presented with this meaningless debate. I've thought that about a few different issues coming out of the Jax section of FL pol. Just saying.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Just wondering by why is FL pol writing on this?

Developers running roughshod with a PUD over a historic district overlay?  Sounds political to me and just as relevant in Tampa as it is here.

[Gators312]

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/211406-jacksonville-roost-debate-not-yet

JACKSONVILLE ROOST DEBATE NOT OVER YET

Attention: Steve Diebenow. More billable hours are headed your way on this Roost issue. But this time, in a different venue.

should be endless summer entertainment!

For a group of "have nots"  they seem to be well connected and well capitalized. 

The Roost concept reminds me of 5 Spot in the Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle.  Now the commercial is more intense, but so is the residential surrounding it.