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

[lowlyplanner]

I don't think Stephen or jlmann are being fair (or accurate).

There are many uses which are already allowed by the zoning which would likely be profitable, especially medical office or multi-family (a much better use for the vacant lots than parking for the restaurant).

The gym was allowed by right under the zoning.  If the building owner had made the other improvements that he promised to when the gym opened, there would be much less complaining about it.

The property owner said at the first public meeting that he had never tried to market the property to anyone else, and never looked at any other use. 

[lowlyplanner]

The rezoning application is what gives the neighbors a chance to make their opinions known.  If the property owner had gone with any of the already legal commercial uses, he wouldn't have had to deal with all this.

Back when I worked for the Planning Department, I did see the reverse happen occasionally.  Typically it was large industrial users trying to stop land being rezoned to create new subdivisions near them... 

[bencrix]

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.

Steve - I'm not arguing that the corridor is not residential. I'm arguing that is historically and presently mixed use, w/ historical precedent for more intense use (streetcar).

My argument is that the real estate market and development patterns of 2016 (not to mention the need for more sustainable communities) beg a reassessment of the 2008 Overlay. Not for the sole benefit of developers per se, but for the neighborhood as a whole. Otherwise, I think we should get used to controversy & spot-zoning. We know where the conflict areas are. We need a more proactive vision for them.

[lowlyplanner]

I think that' s a pretty broad brush jlmann.  Also, the building at Lomax and Riverside is a lawyer's office, not medical. 

While a lot of doctor's offices are pretty bland, there are some notable exceptions - North Florida Dermatology has one of the few remaining Row mansions on Riverside Ave, which looks amazing.

Medical office also ought to work for these buildings because the buildout is pretty simple - the buildings become just a box that you chop up into smaller rooms.  It doesn't require a labor of love...

And medical really benefits from agglomeration.

I do think the owner should make an effort (or at least claim to) to use the property for what it's zoned for before seeking a change...  I really don't think that's too much to ask. 

[Kay]

Why are you guys getting so personal here?  Property owners have a right to weigh in on rezonings.  And no property owner has an automatic right to rezone.  They have a right to apply for a rezoning. 

What is wrong with residents opposing a rezoning to a higher level of intensity where they live? 

Where do you live JLMann? 

[strider]

Just an quick FYI:

Saw this:

This P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.

Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay".  So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".

[Kay]

where do I live?

Right around tha corna. Owner or part owner of 4 properties in 32204/05 including my primary.  Which oh btw borders commercial. And when it gets inevitably developed to a more intense use than current you won't hear me complaining. I knew that full well but was fine with the possibility due to it being a smaller property with limited options. Foresight can be useful when purchasing RE

Admitedly I am making it a bit personal, but the smear and fear tactics that have been deployed, sometimes anonymously, combined with the absolute relentless assault on reason getting me fired up. 

Folks on that block of oak need to be called out for the selfish nimby attitude. Sure they have a right to voice concerns. But at some point we have to say, as a neighborhood, what are the options? Wait for this miracle, non-restaurant tenant with an unlimited budget to show, wait for the 150 seat liquor law to get changed, or work with the people willing to invest in the community in a manner that no one else has been willing to do for decades?

The compromise last reached was reasonable.  There will always be people negatively affected by such developments. But in this case the very small number who voluntarily live and bought homes within a block of some of the densest commercial in the area should not be allowed to have first right of refusal.  It probably will detract from a few homeowners quality of life. No doubt. But you can count them on your hand.  This is a win for Riverside and will positively affect the neighborhood as a whole

Do you rent?  I didn't find a property you own "around the corner."  Park and Forbes is quite a ways away so that this restaurant will not impact you. 

[Know Growth]

Can't wait to head to roost and on the way read Stephens post inquiring how life is after the roost-apocalypse

When he inquired about the hilariously dubbed pizza apocalypse it was all quiet from we love Avondale. They was up enjoyin pies

Avondale Pizza Apocolypse did not materialize thanks to the fact that We Love Avondale negotiated,tamped down,scaled back Applicant's proposal. (Although personally,I thought a rooftop band with sound attenuation mitigation device would have been cool..... )

[Kay]

Just an quick FYI:

Saw this:

This P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.

Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay".  So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".

The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility.  This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use. 

[Kay]

I do not rent. See earlier comments. They are 100% factual. Perhaps John L Mann is who I am. Perhaps not.  You can make your username anything you like but I see how searching coj could lead you to believe that.

Mann J

If this were a radio show id be a "long time listener, first time caller" thus wise enough to put up a curtain

But to the point Kay- you seem to be suggesting that someone living the vast distance of 2-3 blocks from this development is unqualified or unworthy to offer input?  Is that the case?

I sure hope not because by extension you would then be saying that the handful of people living directly around the property should get final say on everything.

Back to your dismissal of park and forbes st residents tho. If you acknowledge people 2-3 blocks away won't even be impacted haven't you've really just made my argument for me?

I think the people directly effected should get primary consideration, yes.  It's easy to support something when you will not be directly impacted.  And all that commercial intensity around Publix was there before the Overlay was developed (except for Black Sheep).  The Overlay is not that old and the conditions not different to say that the Overlay no longer makes sense. 

Personally attacking and calling out folks concerned about their quality of life is immature and not cool. 

[MEGATRON]

Just an quick FYI:

Saw this:

This P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.

Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay".  So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".

The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility.  This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.

what does it matter?  The nuts in this neighborhood fight the commercial uses even when they are trying to go into those areas where the overlay incentivizes commercial use.

[Kay]

I do not rent. See earlier comments. They are 100% factual. Perhaps John L Mann is who I am. Perhaps not.  You can make your username anything you like but I see how searching coj could lead you to believe that.

Mann J

If this were a radio show id be a "long time listener, first time caller" thus wise enough to put up a curtain

But to the point Kay- you seem to be suggesting that someone living the vast distance of 2-3 blocks from this development is unqualified or unworthy to offer input?  Is that the case?

I sure hope not because by extension you would then be saying that the handful of people living directly around the property should get final say on everything.

Back to your dismissal of park and forbes st residents tho. If you acknowledge people 2-3 blocks away won't even be impacted haven't you've really just made my argument for me?

I think the people directly effected should get primary consideration, yes.  It's easy to support something when you will not be directly impacted.  And all that commercial intensity around Publix was there before the Overlay was developed (except for Black Sheep).  The Overlay is not that old and the conditions not different to say that the Overlay no longer makes sense. 

Personally attacking and calling out folks concerned about their quality of life is immature and not cool.

And the City agrees about who is considered affected parties.  It is those property owners within 350 feet of the property being rezoned, deviated, etc. 

[Kay]

Just an quick FYI:

Saw this:

This P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.

Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay".  So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".

The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility.  This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.

what does it matter?  The nuts in this neighborhood fight the commercial uses even when they are trying to go into those areas where the overlay incentivizes commercial use.

I hear you Megatron but that is not the case in this situation. 

[strider]

Just an quick FYI:

Saw this:

This P.U.D. (bill # 2016-0055) is a massively precedent-setting encroachment, that will weaken zoning protections in all residences currently protected by a historical overlay, such as all of Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, and Mayport.

Springfield has several PUD's already as just about every block that had commercial infill was converted back to RMD-S (residential) so for popular places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main (where Uptown is), Mr Meek's lauded office building and more all had to be PUD's to exist. All of them were asking to do something that was "against the overlay".  So, overlays really do not stop PUD's and perhaps they should not. As the precedent had already been set in Springfield, one can readily see it is not some end of the world as we know it event. The issue then becomes, some only want them for "the right people".

The Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay incentivizes development to go into certain areas by relaxing code requirements (commercial, office, urban transition) in return for protecting residential areas from commercial intrusion and incompatibility.  This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use. 

My point was that even though the overlay's attempt to restrict incompatible uses within the residential blocks, the residents asked for various types of commercial infill and in the past, supported the applications for PUD"s that, as an example, enabled a property to have a labor pool when labor pools are prohibited, enabled late night music and festivities with single family housing right next door; all of the things being complained about over the roost.  On the other side, folks complained when the wrong person asked for the ability to simply do what was allowed by right or exception. This issue of the Roost is not precedent setting and so it is no surprise that a few who complained were not listened to but rather the previous precedents were followed. This PUD is not the overlay killing event some fear it will be. It will not "kill" any of the other overlays even if the Roost proves to be problematic to the community.

The event that can and mostly will hurt if not "kill" the overlays happened a couple of years ago and the DOJ is the agency that will make it happen probably within the next year or so.

[bencrix]

This PUD intensifies a residential area with an incompatible use.

It really isn't a residential area w/ only 65% residential (citing your number). It is a mixed used corridor designed to be served by multi-modal transportation. Thus, it is one of the best areas in the neighborhood for increased density / activity. Particularly if we ever want to increase walkability, provide more transportation choices in our City, and do something about waste & pollution.

We do, don't we?

No one is asking for PUD on Herschel, because that actually is mostly residential, w/ just a few residential structures converted to offices.

The overlay activists must have dreamt of transforming Oak from King to Margaret to a predominantly residential corridor. I'd guess the "Residential Character" designation for that corridor was considered a victory at the time. But it was a blunt instrument and, given that the market has evolved differently, the first cause of the present conflict.

Again, we know the areas where the wisdom of the 2008 overlay conflicts with 2016 realities. I'd prefer a new vision to serial NIMBYism & litigation.

What if instead of feeding lawyers, all that NIMBY investment went towards a revised overlay, a developer's grant fund for partial redevelopment of derelict commerical properties (maybe even new liquor regulations)?