Draft of the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay.
I'm not sure you knew about it (I sure didn't), but sometime last year RAP and others sat down to develop a comprehensive zoning overlay for the historic district. I'll paraphrase the overlay, and highlight a few things that I think are important, but I encourage you to read it yourself, and provide comment. It's not every day a community takes the time to imagine its future. If you consider yourself a part of this neighborhood you probably have opinions about that development. So, read and respond! I will pass your comments along to those whose job it is to care.
Draft of the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay
Basically, because standard zoning rules do not recognize the "small lots, high lot coverage and other aspects of the neighborhood's unique residential development pattern," and the Riverside Avondale area has been negatively affected by these rules and by "design standards which do not recognize the unique character of the various neighborhoods and mixed use centers within this area," and considering future development of the area, and hoping to keep its unique built character intact, special zoning "zone" (for lack of a better word) was created for Riverside and Avondale.
When I returned from New Orleans I had picked up this really interesting idea from one of my fellow LISC Americorps members from San Diego: do detailed and frequent surveys of your community to find out what folks are thinking, wishing, hating, fearing, needing, etc.
I suggested this to Matt and he reminded me of the zoning overlay, the draft of which just happened to come in last week.
While it doesn't address the unique social environment of the historic district (a completely separate can of worms), it is fairly comprehensive on form and aesthetics. How does this neighborhood function? Where is commercial activity best located? How should new construction be regulated to fit into the existing built environment? How should parking lots be landscaped and connected to pedestrian streets? Down to how big planters on sidewalks and how tall the plants in them should be.
I don't think there's anything deeply controversial about the overlay, but any time a community visions itself and its future to this level of detail and solidifies those ideas into written regulations we have a mandate to nitpick over those details, and I have a few things to bring up.
First of all, I'm not sure how the meetings were advertised, but I never heard anything about them. That's not cool. All of Jacksonville needs to become more transparent and communicative, and this neighborhood is no exception.
A few specifics I wish were addressed that aren't (that may have been if had known about the meetings):
-BICYCLES! There's nothing in the plan that requires bicycle racks for new developments. When you get down to the level of describing exactly what size pot and what height tree shall be placed on sidewalks I think you can mandate bike racks. They could be per block, or per x feet of road frontage, or per x commercial or residential units...It wouldn't have to be incredibly dense, I think the amount of bike parking at Publix, et al. is fine. It's just a really good detail to pay attention to.
-PLANT SPECIES. While we're recommending that a tree in a planter be "two (2) times as high as the height of the pot." and that, "tree species are appropriate for street planting conditions", why not ask that drought tolerant natives be considered first? Easy way to conserve water and fertilizer.
Great parts of this zoning plan, things that make me smile, include:
-PUBLIC SPACE. Minimum provisions for new developments to provide open public space adjacent to public streets. This standard includes community gardens as one example of how to provide public space.
-PARKING. It seems like there's been careful attention paid to positioning parking within the built environment to minimize its impact on the streetscape. I like this.
-OVERALL AESTHETIC. Whoever did attend these meetings seemed to capture rather well the look and function of Riverside and Avondale. Most of the recommendations for how to build new stuff amidst the older stuff sound spot on.
Things that seem silly and inconsequential (to me, I'd be curious for input from those involved as to why these things were deemed important):
-"No sale, display or storage of secondhand merchandise shall be permitted." What about vintage shops and antiques?
-Under regulations for signage, "The use of florescent colors is prohibited."Apart from the typo, and although I'm no fan of fluorescents myself, I just don't understand why this matters. I'm sure, in fact, that tasteful and interesting use of those colors is possible. The resolution of my nitpicking is not nearly so fine as this!
And a few things that make me feel a little weird:
-Under allowed uses for Commercial, Residential and Office buildings, "Employment office (but not a day labor pool).
-Rather strict regulations on commercial signage and street art. I'm not even sure that the particular restrictions are a problem, but I never like to see that a community has thought too hard about restricting visual expression, or anything that they call "art". On the other hand, since the majority of these signs would likely be advertisements (a word that isn't used in the draft, but perhaps should be), I would happily agree to their limitation.
So that's it. I cherry picked this report, and I know very little about zoning districts and their methods of functioning. I hope that someone with a bit more knowledge can comment. It's always fascinating and important when any group of people decides on any aspect of their future together. I think the resulting document deserves our attention.
Draft of the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay
Basically, because standard zoning rules do not recognize the "small lots, high lot coverage and other aspects of the neighborhood's unique residential development pattern," and the Riverside Avondale area has been negatively affected by these rules and by "design standards which do not recognize the unique character of the various neighborhoods and mixed use centers within this area," and considering future development of the area, and hoping to keep its unique built character intact, special zoning "zone" (for lack of a better word) was created for Riverside and Avondale.
When I returned from New Orleans I had picked up this really interesting idea from one of my fellow LISC Americorps members from San Diego: do detailed and frequent surveys of your community to find out what folks are thinking, wishing, hating, fearing, needing, etc.
I suggested this to Matt and he reminded me of the zoning overlay, the draft of which just happened to come in last week.
While it doesn't address the unique social environment of the historic district (a completely separate can of worms), it is fairly comprehensive on form and aesthetics. How does this neighborhood function? Where is commercial activity best located? How should new construction be regulated to fit into the existing built environment? How should parking lots be landscaped and connected to pedestrian streets? Down to how big planters on sidewalks and how tall the plants in them should be.
I don't think there's anything deeply controversial about the overlay, but any time a community visions itself and its future to this level of detail and solidifies those ideas into written regulations we have a mandate to nitpick over those details, and I have a few things to bring up.
First of all, I'm not sure how the meetings were advertised, but I never heard anything about them. That's not cool. All of Jacksonville needs to become more transparent and communicative, and this neighborhood is no exception.
A few specifics I wish were addressed that aren't (that may have been if had known about the meetings):
-BICYCLES! There's nothing in the plan that requires bicycle racks for new developments. When you get down to the level of describing exactly what size pot and what height tree shall be placed on sidewalks I think you can mandate bike racks. They could be per block, or per x feet of road frontage, or per x commercial or residential units...It wouldn't have to be incredibly dense, I think the amount of bike parking at Publix, et al. is fine. It's just a really good detail to pay attention to.
-PLANT SPECIES. While we're recommending that a tree in a planter be "two (2) times as high as the height of the pot." and that, "tree species are appropriate for street planting conditions", why not ask that drought tolerant natives be considered first? Easy way to conserve water and fertilizer.
Great parts of this zoning plan, things that make me smile, include:
-PUBLIC SPACE. Minimum provisions for new developments to provide open public space adjacent to public streets. This standard includes community gardens as one example of how to provide public space.
-PARKING. It seems like there's been careful attention paid to positioning parking within the built environment to minimize its impact on the streetscape. I like this.
-OVERALL AESTHETIC. Whoever did attend these meetings seemed to capture rather well the look and function of Riverside and Avondale. Most of the recommendations for how to build new stuff amidst the older stuff sound spot on.
Things that seem silly and inconsequential (to me, I'd be curious for input from those involved as to why these things were deemed important):
-"No sale, display or storage of secondhand merchandise shall be permitted." What about vintage shops and antiques?
-Under regulations for signage, "The use of florescent colors is prohibited."Apart from the typo, and although I'm no fan of fluorescents myself, I just don't understand why this matters. I'm sure, in fact, that tasteful and interesting use of those colors is possible. The resolution of my nitpicking is not nearly so fine as this!
And a few things that make me feel a little weird:
-Under allowed uses for Commercial, Residential and Office buildings, "Employment office (but not a day labor pool).
-Rather strict regulations on commercial signage and street art. I'm not even sure that the particular restrictions are a problem, but I never like to see that a community has thought too hard about restricting visual expression, or anything that they call "art". On the other hand, since the majority of these signs would likely be advertisements (a word that isn't used in the draft, but perhaps should be), I would happily agree to their limitation.
So that's it. I cherry picked this report, and I know very little about zoning districts and their methods of functioning. I hope that someone with a bit more knowledge can comment. It's always fascinating and important when any group of people decides on any aspect of their future together. I think the resulting document deserves our attention.




