Durkeeville Project Illustrates Zoning Code Issues

[Metro Jacksonville]

Durkeeville Project Illustrates Zoning Code Issues



While the introduction of Family Dollar should be a boon for a neighborhood in need of additional retail; allowing an autocentric suburban box in the middle of an historic pedestrian friendly neighborhood illustrates why Jacksonville's zoning code should be modified.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jun-durkeeville-project-illustrates-zoning-code-issues

[Noone]

Nice work Ennis.

[Jaxson]

I agree with Noone.  This is great insight.  What can we do about this or is it too late?

[dougskiles]

Is it too late to implement your site plan?  I really like what you've done.

[vicupstate]

Is it the zoning code that is pushing/requiring the suburban model here, or is it just the preference of the owner (Family Dollar)? 

I don't know, but I suspect the urban model (which is very good, btw) could be done under current zoning, but the suburban model is the accepted/expected norm, that no one (other than MJ of course) questions nor suggests an alternative to.

   

[thelakelander]

The zoning code drives site plan development.  From my experience, under existing zoning it's easier to design suburban than it is urban. Urban oriented development typically results in you having to apply for a PUD. In the urban core, it should be reverse, imo.

[Wacca Pilatka]

Great article.

What is the nature of the Save-A-Lot project in East Jacksonville - will that have a similarly suburban layout?

[dougskiles]

Is it the zoning code that is pushing/requiring the suburban model here, or is it just the preference of the owner (Family Dollar)? 

I don't know, but I suspect the urban model (which is very good, btw) could be done under current zoning, but the suburban model is the accepted/expected norm, that no one (other than MJ of course) questions nor suggests an alternative to.

In most cases, you can design a site under the suburban code that fits the urban model.  But, you don't typically get as many parking spaces and the developers and tenants are all very hungry for parking spaces in front of the building.  There is a perception that nobody will visit the store if they can't see available parking in the front.  And in many cases they are correct.  That is the sad truth of the auto-centric society that we have.  But in a location like Durkeeville, where a large percentage of the customers will come by foot, bike or transit, it doesn't matter if there are no parking spaces up front.  In fact, it is the opposite.  The store will be more accessible to them.

It really comes down to who the property is trying to serve.  Cars or pedestrians.

[thelakelander]

Doing some quick research, the property is zoned Commercial Community, General-2 (CCG-2), which is a "one size fits all" commercial zoning district that has the same regulations regardless of whether the context around it is urban or suburban.  

Here is a small example of how adding three words to a particular lot requirement can influence the layout of an entire project.

CCG-2 Minimum lot requirements

(d) Minimum lot requirements (width and area). None, except as otherwise required for certain uses.
(e) Maximum lot coverage by all buildings. None, except as otherwise required for certain uses.

(f) Minimum yard requirements.
(i) Front--None.
(ii) Side--None,
(iii) Rear--Ten feet.
(iv) Where the lot is adjacent to a residential district without an intervening street, a minimum yard of 25 feet shall be provided along private property lines adjoining the residential district. No improvements other than landscaping, visual screening or retention may be permitted in the required yard.
(g) Maximum height of structures. Sixty feet.

Full zoning http://www3.coj.net/Departments/Planning-and-Development/Docs/Current-Planning-Division/commercial-community,-general-2-(ccg-2)-district.aspx

A simple solution to this that would take out the possibility of surface parking between the building and the sidewalk would be the inclusion of "Maximum".  Here is a local example:

Commercial Community/General-Springfield (CCG-S) Zoning District

Minimum yard requirements.

(1)
Front setback: None,maximum ten feet.

(2)
Side setback: None, if the building on the adjacent lot is built to the property line or if the adjacent lot is vacant. Unless no space is left between buildings on adjacent lots, a space of not less than six feet shall be provided between buildings. Where the lot is adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 15 feet shall be provided.

(3)
Rear setback: 15 feet.

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level4/TITXVIILAUS_CH656ZOCO_PT3SCDIRE_SPISPZOOVHIDIRE.html#TITXVIILAUS_CH656ZOCO_PT3SCDIRE_SPISPZOOVHIDIRE_S656.368SPHIZODI


Since the maximum front setback in Springfield's CCG-S district is 10 feet, you literally can't put a surface parking lot between the front door of a building and the street without applying and paying for a zoning exception or PUD.  

Density and mix of uses aside, with the inclusion of those three simple words into your setback requirement section, you turn a McDonalds box into this:


Same box, except it faces the street with parking on the side or behind the building.

Without it, you end up with what we have:



Same use, same square footage, same store layout, same number of parking spaces, same costs (this could go down if we address parking requirements) but completely different feel from the street.

That's one small example of how we can change the relationship of the built environment along our sidewalks and streets.  Btw, looking at the uses allowed for CCG-2, it also looks like one would have to rezone if they wanted to do a project with residential uses above street level retail, along Kings Road in Durkeeville.  With our regulations, we need to get to the point to where its more difficult and costly to get a suburban project approved in the core than an urban one.  That's the most sure fire way to stop suburban intrusion and dedensification within the urban core of Jacksonville.

[Gravity]

YES!

This is the push that is needed to allow for serious development to transition this city into a future that can support a growing population.

The "central business district" or "Urban priority" on that last map is a much more realistic focus than "the urban core" as far as what is currently active in traffic and businesses.

While the idyllic nature of the urban core is something we should be looking to beautify long term, let's definitely stoke the fires that are already burning and build arteries for vital pathways and freeing up development that will modernize the look, feel and function of this fine city. Once we have a thriving business core we can focus on the niceties and restoring previous landmarks. 

[vicupstate]

So basically, Family Dollar COULD do the urban design WITHOUT a PUD or special exception/variance, but there is nothing in the code to either encourage or REQUIRE it to do so.  That being the case, Family Dollar is following the typical suburban model instead, and may very well never have even considered a more urban design.

Would this be an accurate description?

I agree 100% that the urban model should be the 'easy norm' versus the suburban model being the 'easy norm'.

[thelakelander]

Yes, that would be an accurate description.  We assume the private sector prefers this style of design and the private sector assumes we want it. Couple that with zoning ordinances that encourage it and you get our environment.  At the end of the day, as long as you're not costing them more money and the site selection requirements can be met, the private sector could care less about whether the project is autocentric or multimodal friendly. This part is up to the municipality. 

[urbaknight]

Maybe Alvin Brown can do something about the zoning laws when he takes office.

[acme54321]

It would have been the best dollar store in the country if it was in the old feedstore warehouse restored.

[thelakelander]

+1,000