Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow

[IamAmerican]

Jim Love's bill to prevent new business developments in riverside/avondale by requiring impossible parking mandates is up for a vote tomorrow. Jacksonville strikes again...killing organic, citizen initiated growth and revitalization through heavy handed over regulation.

If you can make it to the city council meeting to voice your thoughts about deceptive and misleading legislation please come.




This is a link to the original bill.

http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2012-0339\Original%20Text

[tufsu1]

I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote

[Intuition Ale Works]

A little too late.

This bill has received no opposition.

[Intuition Ale Works]

I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote

It was in front of LUZ last week.

It is a done deal.

[thelakelander]

I have a few questions:

Conversion of a structure to a restaurant, nightclub or any establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.

1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot.  Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this? 

I ask, because if someone does have the cash to pull it off, a lot of buildings that should be considered "contributing" stand in the way of being demolished for surface parking, which goes against the intent of the overlay.  This kills the small guys moreso than the larger national chains.  Derby on Park probably wouldn't be able to afford this but an entity like TGI Fridays could wipe out an entire city block with no problem, bringing a little sliver of the Southside and Blanding Boulevard along with it to meet everyone's parking demands.

2. Does this statement apply to all restaurants in general or those that would like to serve any type of alcoholic beverage?

3. What about if a structure was a restaurant at some point in its history?  In this particular situation, would the opening of a new establishment in such a structure still be subject to the same rules.

4. So if this goes through, what's everyone's guess on the neighborhood to benefit from Riverside's lost economic opportunities?  Murray Hill?  Fairfax?  Brooklyn? San Marco? Springfield?

[Adam W]

1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot.  Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this? 

God, I hope not. That is ludicrous. And sad.

[Intuition Ale Works]

I have a few questions:

Conversion of a structure to a restaurant, nightclub or any establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.

1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot.  Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this? 

I ask, because if someone does have the cash to pull it off, a lot of buildings that should be considered "contributing" stand in the way of being demolished for surface parking, which goes against the intent of the overlay.  This kills the small guys moreso than the larger national chains.  Derby on Park probably wouldn't be able to afford this but an entity like TGI Fridays could wipe out an entire city block with no problem, bringing a little sliver of the Southside and Blanding Boulevard along with it to meet everyone's parking demands.

2. Does this statement apply to all restaurants in general or those that would like to serve any type of alcoholic beverage?

3. What about if a structure was a restaurant at some point in its history?  In this particular situation, would the opening of a new establishment in such a structure still be subject to the same rules.

4. So if this goes through, what's everyone's guess on the neighborhood to benefit from Riverside's lost economic opportunities?  Murray Hill?  Fairfax?  Brooklyn? San Marco? Springfield?

Lakelander-

I would say email Jim Love but I doubt he is capable of understanding the consequences of this ordinance.

I emailed the LUZ committee with those same concerns and never heard back.

I spoke with RAP and they claimed that if the use does not change and the building is not vacant for more than 6 months, then the ordinance would not affect the new tenant or business owner.

This ordinance was pushed by the neighbors of the Avondale shoppes that did not have an opportunity to be heard when Mojo's moved in.

The neighborhood and the RAP board are capping the number of restaurants and bars in our neighborhood.

One silver lining is that it could push nightlife into 5 points, Brooklyn and downtown.

Ben

[thelakelander]

Here's the modified bill.

The Land Use and Zoning Committee offers the following first amendment to File No. 2012-339:

(1)   Strike page 2, lines 6 through page 3 line 30, in its entirety and insert:

“(a)   Except for conversions of structures to a restaurant with more than 100 seats and/or 2,500 square feet of total heated and cooled area, nightclub or any other establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption, retail sales or service establishments and single-family residential uses located in contributing structures within an identified commercial character area shall have zero parking requirements.

(b)   Conversions of structures to a restaurant with more than 100 seats and/or 2,500 square feet of total heated and cooled area, nightclub or any other establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.

(c)   Any expansion of contributing structures, after the date of the adoption of this Subpart shall provide 50 percent of the required parking for the expansion pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use.

(d)   Except for conversions to new structures for a restaurant with more than 100 seats and/or 2,500 square feet of total heated and cooled area, nightclub or any other establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption, zero parking shall be required of new structures when such structures are built to the same or less than the square footage of a non-contributing structure if that structure is being replaced. However, all adjacent on-street parking shall be brought into compliance with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i)—(iv) and Table 4.

(e)   Except as set forth in above, the number of spaces for retail sales and service establishments and multi-family uses shall be 50 percent 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.

(f)   Conversions to office uses for a contributing historic structure shall be required to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the required parking regulations in Section 656.604(e)(3), regardless of type of office use, and 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.

(g)   Except as provided above, 65 percent of the required number of spaces in Section 656.604(e)(3) shall be provided for conversions to office uses, regardless of type of officer use, of non-contributing structures or new construction and 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.”; and

(2)   Amend the introduction line to reflect this Amendment.
Form Approved:
   /s/ Dylan T. Reingold_________
Office of General Counsel

Legislation Prepared By:   Dylan Reingold

[thelakelander]

I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote

It was in front of LUZ last week.

It is a done deal.

Ben is right.  It appears final council vote is scheduled for tomorrow.

[Tacachale]

Damn. That's too bad. We shoot ourselves in the foot yet again.

[strider]

It does appear that those opposed to this were asleep at the wheel here.  However, there is still a chance to speak on this bill tomorrow and if you get enough people out to do that and you have a convincing argument, you can get it sent back to the committees for re-evaluation.  How strongly do you feel that this is going to badly hurt the development of Riverside/ Avondale?  Can you convince at least half of city council that you are right?

To this layman, it seems that only larger restaurants over 100 seats are effected.  How important is that in the scheme of things?  What I would like to know is if Kickbacks and MM would be effected by this in any way?  Or do they have their paperwork in so it misses them?

[mtraininjax]

Jim Love needs to be taken out to the woodshed come election time if this passes.

Stephen - Pretty sad statement on your part, you don't even live in the neighborhood. Jim lives across the street from me and he cares about the neighborhood as do many of the owners of the Shoppes of Avondale. While I'd like to see more variety of restaurants, I don't have a problem with taking a breather and waiting to see how the neighborhood absorbs more vehicles in the area.

The statement about Jim Love is callous and unnecessary. Jim is doing exactly what we asked him to do when we elected him, and he is doing what he thinks is right. If you think he is wrong, take up the fight against him in the next election.

[thelakelander]

It does appear that those opposed to this were asleep at the wheel here.  However, there is still a chance to speak on this bill tomorrow and if you get enough people out to do that and you have a convincing argument, you can get it sent back to the committees for re-evaluation.  How strongly do you feel that this is going to badly hurt the development of Riverside/ Avondale?  Can you convince at least half of city council that you are right?

To this layman, it seems that only larger restaurants over 100 seats are effected.  How important is that in the scheme of things?  What I would like to know is if Kickbacks and MM would be effected by this in any way?  Or do they have their paperwork in so it misses them?

I believe Kickback's and MM are exempt.  They've already submitted their applications.  If I'm Springfield, Murray Hill, San Marco, etc., I'd look at this an opportunity to steer some potential development my way since the market for larger establishments is larger than Riverside.

[futurejax]

As someone who lives in the neighborhood this is lunacy gone wild.  Of course there are not enough parking spaces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Ever been to the Riverside Publix around lunchtime?  Good luck getting a spot.  But that's the breaks Jim.  It's called living in a urban environement.   Scarce parking is also the ONLY way towards intelligent and efficient mass transit.  Do people like this really believe that for every shop and business there has to be enough parking spaces for every potential customer to find one if they all happen to visit at the exact same time?!  Have these people ever heard of New York City?  I'll tell you first hand Jim, there are not enough spaces for everyone who wants one there.  You'd be quite appalled.  Oh the stupidity.

[thehill]

I have a few questions:

Conversion of a structure to a restaurant, nightclub or any establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.

1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot.  Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this? 

I ask, because if someone does have the cash to pull it off, a lot of buildings that should be considered "contributing" stand in the way of being demolished for surface parking, which goes against the intent of the overlay.  This kills the small guys moreso than the larger national chains.  Derby on Park probably wouldn't be able to afford this but an entity like TGI Fridays could wipe out an entire city block with no problem, bringing a little sliver of the Southside and Blanding Boulevard along with it to meet everyone's parking demands.

2. Does this statement apply to all restaurants in general or those that would like to serve any type of alcoholic beverage?

3. What about if a structure was a restaurant at some point in its history?  In this particular situation, would the opening of a new establishment in such a structure still be subject to the same rules.

4. So if this goes through, what's everyone's guess on the neighborhood to benefit from Riverside's lost economic opportunities?  Murray Hill?  Fairfax?  Brooklyn? San Marco? Springfield?

Lakelander-

I would say email Jim Love but I doubt he is capable of understanding the consequences of this ordinance.

I emailed the LUZ committee with those same concerns and never heard back.

I spoke with RAP and they claimed that if the use does not change and the building is not vacant for more than 6 months, then the ordinance would not affect the new tenant or business owner.

This ordinance was pushed by the neighbors of the Avondale shoppes that did not have an opportunity to be heard when Mojo's moved in.

The neighborhood and the RAP board are capping the number of restaurants and bars in our neighborhood.

One silver lining is that it could push nightlife into 5 points, Brooklyn and downtown.

Ben

I personally welcome any of Jim Love's "Shunned" businesses just down the road a bit in lovely Murray Hill.