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

[ChriswUfGator]

If they're playing head-banging music at 2am, great, we have noise ordinances for that. If their customers are rowdy drunks, great, we have a statute addressing drunk and disorderly conduct. These gripes (that haven't actually happened) aren't zoning issues, they're things that if they happen, there is already a set of laws to deal with them. You call the cops and they stop the offending behavior. I really don't know how a biscottis'esque restaurant/coffeehouse somehow translates into automatic mayhem, but on the 1% chance it did, so what, we have laws for that. Something that likely will not happen, and that is already addressed by laws outside the zoning context if it does, isn't a valid basis to stop the place from opening, IMHO.

[Kay]

The neighborhood has a zoning overlay developed over two years with developers, business owners, and residents.  The overlay is designed around character areas--industrial, urban transition, commercial, office and residential.  The character areas tell you the appropriate use for an area.  And the Overlay is less restrictive than the regular zoning code.

This property happens to be located in a residential character area and is zoned CRO.  There are no restaurants in CRO zoning within the neighborhood.  A 60-seat restaurant is allowed by exception in CRO.  Outside sales and service is not allowed at all.

This business wants to put in a 150-seat restaurant with outside sales and service.  What they want to do is not currently allowed at this location.  Why not either put in a 60-seat indoor restaurant by exception or find a location that allows them to do what they want? 

[ChriswUfGator]

The neighborhood has a zoning overlay developed over two years with developers, business owners, and residents.  The overlay is designed around character areas--industrial, urban transition, commercial, office and residential.  The character areas tell you the appropriate use for an area.  And the Overlay is less restrictive than the regular zoning code.

This property happens to be located in a residential character area and is zoned CRO.  There are no restaurants in CRO zoning within the neighborhood.  A 60-seat restaurant is allowed by exception in CRO.  Outside sales and service is not allowed at all.

This business wants to put in a 150-seat restaurant with outside sales and service.  What they want to do is not currently allowed at this location.  Why not either put in a 60-seat indoor restaurant by exception or find a location that allows them to do what they want? 

Yeah, and biscotti's wants a 4COP when their <150 seating at that location doesn't qualify for it, which RAP is supporting. What's the difference? Mellow Mushroom was zoned for a more intensive use than it actually became, and their seating easily qualified, and yet RAP opposed it? What's the difference? Who picks what gets supported and what doesn't?

No offense but it kind of reminds me of this lately...

[Steve]

Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors.  Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.

Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not.  I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.

Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).

Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.

BTW, for the record I don't have my mind made up on this one - I want to understand it more. The building is a commercial structure in nature (this would be completely different if someone wanted to turn a house into this restaurant), but it isn't really zoned for this. It's zoned CRO (which an example of a CRO business would be the dry cleaner that used to be in it, or a psychologist's office - I don't remember every use the overlay mentions off the top of my head)

[ChriswUfGator]

Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors.  Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.

Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not.  I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.

Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).

Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.

It was mixed use with a heavy dash of commercial for 90 years, and the area is still the same structurally with apartments over businesses, multiple operating restaurants within a couple blocks to either side of this site, a gym next door to it, a quickie mart in front of it, and a 7-11 and giant hospital behind it. That, and to get to your point, Mellow tried to open in a commercial character zone, so why'd they oppose it again? To an outside observer, this is all starting to look very arbitrary.

[johnnyliar]

I have friends who live directly across from the proposed building, and another who lives adjacent to where The Roost will be doing business. So, add that to your list of people who are in favor.

Johnny Liar,

Are you certain you have the location correct? While I admit I have not been able to hit every house in the entire neighborhood, I have spoken, personally, to every resident opposite the site on Oak, and every resident on the affected block. No one who lives there has admitted (to me, at any rate) being remotely in favor of this development.

Now I have not spoken to anyone at SNAP Fitness, which is in the same building as the proposed Roost site, so I guess could be considered adjacent. But it is also not a residence.

I am 100% certain of the location that those I mentioned are in favor of the proposed development.
Obviously, I can't prove that right now, nor do I really want to go through the trouble to prove it, as it is not my neighborhood and I could really care less. I just wanted to let you know that perhaps you were not hearing what all people living closest to the development thought.
I don't care if you believe me, but a development like this doesn't seem too out of place with all of the other seemingly commercial development all around it.

[Steve]

Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors.  Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.

Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not.  I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I.

Once the business is in, no entity can "make them change it". The issue is that the business might be perfectly viable, but be awful for the residents on either side of it. Remember, this is a residential character area, not a commercial character area (like Biscotti's or Mellow).

Under your example of free market, I could open a paper mill on the river in Avondale that is financially viable. Don't think anyone would want to live next to that.

It was mixed use with a heavy dash of commercial for 90 years, and the area is still the same structurally with apartments over businesses, multiple operating restaurants within a couple blocks to either side of this site, a gym next door to it, a quickie mart in front of it, and a 7-11 and giant hospital behind it. That, and to get to your point, Mellow tried to open in a commercial character zone, so why'd they oppose it again? To an outside observer, this is all starting to look very arbitrary.

I'm not going to speak for RAP here, but people seem to think that when a development plan comes along, RAP is 100% for or 100% against it. This isn't the case at all. I can say personally, I love Mellow Mushroom, and I'm glad they are there. I'm not going to rehash that one, but there were certain aspects that I was not in favor of, and of the ones that I felt strongly against, all of them were dropped from the final plan.

I haven't seen the final plan here so I don't know how I feel on this. Conceptually, if you were to tell me that a small breakfast place were to open up, I'd be fine with it. If you told me a nightclub wanted to open up, I'm be against it. This is obviously somewhere in between, which is how most developments are. This is why saying "I'm 100% for" or "I'm 100% against" is disingenuous to the process.

At present, the property isn't zoned for it - this is why the rezoning process exists.

[KPettway]

While we're sharing anecdotal stories, I'm a member at Snap Fitness and it isn't unusual on Friday and Saturday nights to find, across the street, a group of loud, boisterous, and (presumably) intoxicated people hanging out in front of their house and having a grand ol' time.

Were they against the new business, KPettway? I'll ask them myself next time I see them. They seem nice. Maybe they'll offer me a beer out of friendship.

They were against it, but primarily because they park on the street, and they foresee having to walk several blocks every night from wherever they can find to park when they get home from work.

They likely would give you a beer. They're super-nice folks.

[KPettway]

Another way of looking at is KPettway comes in here and expects people to take him/her on good faith re: how the neighbors feel, but is skeptical when someone comes in and claims something contrary to what they posted.

It's a fair point. I don't expect you to take what I write here on simple faith, this is all a conversation. However, I would imagine that introducing a different point of view would at least give us all something to talk about.

[KPettway]

I have mixed feelings on this one. Full disclosure I am actively engaged in moving into Riverside. I love all of the shops, bars and restaurants.  I can also see the need to manage the needs of different parties.

[KPettway]

I too have trouble seeing issue here. Other 150 seat restaurants that serve liquor are not neighborhood nuisances in JAX. As others have said, they will not be playing head banging music till 2 am every night. There are still noise ordnances that need to be obeyed. If outdoor seating is an issues, fine then don't allow it. Wow, the memory of Mellow Mushrooms oppenents fades quickly in this city.

A primary issue is commercial encroachment. Regardless of the type of restaurant, if a PUD is obtained to develop it, it will be MUCH easier for the next plan to come along, point to the Roost, and say, "They are already here, this is obviously the character of the area, we're coming in too." Added to this is the second building on the property, included in the PUD, which the developers may use to create whatever they wish. Encroachment issues are even higher when there are two inappropriate businesses instead of one.

[KPettway]

Here's the part that I have a hard time understanding:  You have someone wanting to come in, remodel an empty storefront and make a go of it.  How is that a bad thing?  Is the market really that good that we should be poo-pooing ideas before they even get a chance to succeed or fail all on their own?

Worse case scenario - they open, the product doesn't fit the 'character' of the neighborhood and they're forced to change the business model or close the doors.  Now the neighborhood has a newly renovated, empty storefront that might open the door for another brave soul to open something that fits the neighborhood a bit better.

Get out of the way and let the market decide if it's a viable business or not.  I think that's the point that some other posters on this site have stated a helluva lot more eloquently than I. 

If it fits and works, than it's yet another positive for the hood.  What's so bad if it doesn't work?  Where's the overall negative?

The PUD is permanent and stays with the property. The neighborhood will have zero input on what comes in afterward, following the trail blazed by the Roost.

[KPettway]

If they're playing head-banging music at 2am, great, we have noise ordinances for that. If their customers are rowdy drunks, great, we have a statute addressing drunk and disorderly conduct. These gripes (that haven't actually happened) aren't zoning issues, they're things that if they happen, there is already a set of laws to deal with them. You call the cops and they stop the offending behavior. I really don't know how a biscottis'esque restaurant/coffeehouse somehow translates into automatic mayhem, but on the 1% chance it did, so what, we have laws for that. Something that likely will not happen, and that is already addressed by laws outside the zoning context if it does, isn't a valid basis to stop the place from opening, IMHO.

[KPettway]

This business wants to put in a 150-seat restaurant with outside sales and service.  What they want to do is not currently allowed at this location.  Why not either put in a 60-seat indoor restaurant by exception or find a location that allows them to do what they want?

There certainly would have been a lot fewer objections.

[KPettway]

It was mixed use with a heavy dash of commercial for 90 years, and the area is still the same structurally with apartments over businesses, multiple operating restaurants within a couple blocks to either side of this site, a gym next door to it, a quickie mart in front of it, and a 7-11 and giant hospital behind it. That, and to get to your point, Mellow tried to open in a commercial character zone, so why'd they oppose it again? To an outside observer, this is all starting to look very arbitrary.