Jax LUZ Committee discusses Roost, will resume action Monday

Conceptual drawing of the controversial Roost restaurant/bar

At a special seven-hour meeting Wednesday evening, the Jacksonville City Council Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) committee discussed The Roost, a controversial restaurant development in Riverside.

They didn’t get close to a vote, and the decision was made, before public comments, to adjourn until 4 p.m. Monday.

****

Community outcry has beset the proposed project since late last year.

Immediate neighbors of the project, which would replace a dry cleaner closed long ago, spotlighted concerns, including toxic waste from the building’s previous use, incompatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood, and insufficient parking. They also contend the proposed use violates the site’s Commercial/Residency/Office (CRO) zoning.

There is also some grousing over the connections between Planning Commission members, which approved the project, and developer Jay Demetree with the mayor’s office.

And no matter what LUZ does about The Roost, the losing side will take it to court, where the quasi-judicial hearing will become judicial.

Folks Huxford of the Planning Department said a conditional approval was forwarded to the Planning Commission, based on use being compatible with the neighborhood with no outside service, with 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. hours, a fence between 6 and 8 feet high, and other conditions.

The Planned Unit Development (PUD), he said, could be consistent with the area and its history of usage of the space. As well, 11 restaurants with similar zoning, including the nearby Pinegrove Deli and the Cummer Museum, serve alcohol.

However, the overlay does not allow this as CRO; it would have to be a PUD.

Steve Diebenow, representing The Roost, described the mixed-use PUD, which included a 150-seat restaurant, office space, and the on-site gym. He contended the proposed use complies with the zoning overlay in the historical character area.

Diebenow also addressed the assertion that property values would decline, saying houses near restaurants actually appreciate in value faster than others, and adding it is a historically permitted commercial use.

Witnesses for his side noted that Riverside Avenue, which parallels Oak Street, is already approaching “failure rate” in terms of capacity, and supported the notion of putting a restaurant close to St. Vincent’s Hospital. They also asserted that The Roost would not be a “destination” restaurant, but one that gets pass-over traffic.

The contention, also, was that while the overlay was fine, the affected half block was not.

Barry Bobek, representing the opponents of the site under the umbrella of PROUD (Positive Riverside Optimized Urban Development), accused developers of “making it up as we go along” regarding rules about zoning, parking, and more.

District Councilman Jim Love, bringing up the controversial Mellow Mushroom development in Avondale, noted that was CCG (Commercial Community General) zoning, a distinct difference from CRO.

Other council members questioned projections of developers’ witnesses, with the questions becoming sharper as the hearing meandered toward its fourth hour.

Jacksonville Councilman John Crescimbeni, not a member of the committee, was especially interested in asking follow-up questions to the developer’s side, including nuanced questions like the difference between “Deluxe Cleaner” and “Deluxe Cleaners.”

As the hearing wound into its fifth hour, Bobek called Jack Shad, the city’s former parking director, among his witnesses.

Shad had worked as a volunteer on the Riverside Zoning Overlay, and deemed the fate of areas like that a “major point of discussion.” Riverside Avondale Preservation, with whom he worked, had wanted strict residential zoning, but settled for a compromise for areas like this, deemed residential character areas.

The previous use, as a laundry and dry cleaning plant, was actually an industrial use, which required less parking. The developers, said Shad, were given credit for 13 more spaces than they should have, spotlighting a potential capacity issue about neighborhood impact, “overstating the credits.”

Diebenow pressed Shad on why the city would give credit to an old, disused structure; Shad noted that in his previous role, “stricter parking requirements” were seen as a way of protecting historic areas.

Beyond parking, the environmental impacts can’t be discounted. One potential issue: contaminants in the soil on the block next to Snap Fitness adjacent to the proposed site. Among options discussed: remediation of the property via the city’s Brownfields program. Of course, many properties, including the Shipyards, would likely take precedence over a former dry cleaning plant.

Councilman Danny Becton noted the location was just three blocks from Five Points, wondering if those objecting to the project “just wanted more residential.”

“My observation being on that street,” Becton said of Oak Street, “was I was about to be run over,” saying that it was “just a matter of semantics … that Oak Street was not a connected road.

“My perception was this was just an easy cut through as you come through Five Points,” Becton said, noting that “Riverside Avenue was much more residential.”

“You’ve got another piece of property here; it’s rundown, it’s commercial,” Becton continued. “The street is not residential; it is mixed use.”

At the cusp of 11 p.m., with 60 public comment cards to be worked through, the decision was made to go through public comment and resume deliberations Monday afternoon.