Retail-less Parador Parking Garage Up For DDRB Appoval

[JeffreyS]

At this point at least leave enough room for retail and upgrade the facade.

[Keith-N-Jax]

I may have just given up on Jax.

^^^ This, despite all the big talk, plans, and ideas they always resort back to the usual- talk big think small. It'll never change.

[dougskiles]

I could live with the garage without retail, if the plaza they are planning on the future retail site could be constructed in such a way a to allow food trucks to set up every day.

That is what they are proposing.  But - the food truck decision isn't one for DDRB to make.  And, as Mike Field very clearly demonstrated, the depths they are setting aside for future retail don't meet standard marketable dimensions.  There is room, however, to push the garage closer to the SunTrust building so that a more viable retail building could be constructed.

^^Yep. Doesn't this still have to be approved by City Council? maybe it can be stopped there.

Council already approved the grant, see 2011-0366

^From my understanding, the $3.5 million was for the Landing's parking situation, not Suntrust.  It appears COJ believes this will satisfy their obligation. So is it safe to assume, we're going to have another fight on our hands between Sleiman and COJ?

The $3.5 million is in the deal regardless of whether or not Sleiman agrees.  What hinges on Sleiman's acceptance is if the city contributes up to $132,250 per year for a parking validation program.  And from what I understand, that is where the issue comes in.  If the parking count for Sleiman were increased to 300 per day (up from 200) AND the Landing had the right to make those spaces dedicated for retail tenants, I believe they would agree to this.

By giving them the right to those spaces, the city would effectively save $1,587,000 over the life of the deal by not having to pay for the parking validation.  However, then Parador would only have 200 spaces left to serve the SunTrust building.  At a rate of 2/1,000 sf, that doesn't get them enough to adequately fill the building.

[CityLife]

And the applicant was correct, 65 percent occupancy was not arbitrary.  Given that once Class A office space reaches 50pct occupancy, the building becomes much more attractive to sell.  Given the low acquisition costs of the building 4 years ago, my guess is Parador sells it before that 65pct number is reached, thereby dissolving themselves of the responsibility of building the retail which they have made clear is not their kind of business.  All the while they get taxpayer assistance to make that kind of transaction possible.  That's a sweet deal, glad we the taxpayers can subsidize building permanent dead zones on PRIME downtown real estate.

There are also serious issues with the ability to enforce the 65% requirement. The city does not and will not have somebody just sitting around counting the occupancy levels of the Sun Trust Building. It will really only kick in if someone (likely a poster here) somehow gets their occupancy figures and reports it to the city. Additionally, the owners will likely find creative ways to give off the appearance that occupancy is below 65% even if it isn't.

IF this thing gets approved, the city's lawyers need to craft the verbiage so that the requirements get passed on to future owners. Because like you said, they will do everything they can to get out of the requirements. Heck, Parador could just create a new LLC and sell it to itself. Which I've seen happen before...I'm currently dealing with a developer who bought a real estate project from another developer and is trying everything possible to get out of the unfulfilled requirements of the original owner.  That isn't a road the city should want to go down.

[thelakelander]

The $3.5 million is in the deal regardless of whether or not Sleiman agrees.  What hinges on Sleiman's acceptance is if the city contributes up to $132,250 per year for a parking validation program.  And from what I understand, that is where the issue comes in.  If the parking count for Sleiman were increased to 300 per day (up from 200) AND the Landing had the right to make those spaces dedicated for retail tenants, I believe they would agree to this.

By giving them the right to those spaces, the city would effectively save $1,587,000 over the life of the deal by not having to pay for the parking validation.  However, then Parador would only have 200 spaces left to serve the SunTrust building.  At a rate of 2/1,000 sf, that doesn't get them enough to adequately fill the building.

If the parking obligation situation with the Landing called for 300 dedicated spaces, why not just go up another floor or two to accommodate them?  I know it increases the construction costs but Suntrust is getting nearly 50% of the costs to construct the garage from the City.

[fsujax]

@Doug, Council approved the grant, but dont they have to give final approval of the project?

[thelakelander]

I could live with the garage without retail, if the plaza they are planning on the future retail site could be constructed in such a way a to allow food trucks to set up every day.

That is what they are proposing.  But - the food truck decision isn't one for DDRB to make.  And, as Mike Field very clearly demonstrated, the depths they are setting aside for future retail don't meet standard marketable dimensions.  There is room, however, to push the garage closer to the SunTrust building so that a more viable retail building could be constructed.

Moving the garage a little closer to the Suntrust building would be ideal, in terms of making sure the retail spaces are useful if and when they come online.  For example, it's probably too late now but some consideration should be given to the type of retail desired for these spaces.  A smaller 10,000sf CVS would need roughly a 75' x 35' box to play with.  Here's a footprint for a smaller CVS (focus on the building and not the suburban parking lot).



A standard 4-story Hampton Inn hotel would need around 70' x 250' to play with, assuming the associated parking would be in the garage.  In addition to that, a standard specialty retail bay is close to 20' wide x 70' deep.

Furthermore, the more setback that can be created along Hogan provides and opportunity for something greater than ground level retail (maybe a hotel, apartments, etc.) to shield the garage altogether.  You're limited at 38' but the closer you can get to 70' provides for a future with a great number of infill alternatives.  That's the best option for these bland precast Haskell garages around the urban core.

[Jdog]

Has anybody brought forth an argument about inconsistency between the Landing and this dead zone; that is, I thought a main problem of the Landing was that it turned its back on downtown, that it should be opened up in the middle?  How well can the Landing embrace the rest of an active (hopefully increasing) downtown and create a synergy?  Unless I'm missing something this seems asinine to me. 

   

[dougskiles]

@Doug, Council approved the grant, but dont they have to give final approval of the project?

The ordinance gave the city authorization to enter into a development agreement with Parador.  As I understand it, the DDRB's final approval would clear the way for construction.  But... if DDRB doesn't approve the final concept, then they would not have the zoning rights.  Then the developer could go back to city council and ask to modify the agreement.

However, there is another aspect to this that hasn't been addressed - and that is the mitigation that will be required to comply with the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) conditions.  The TCEA requires that all new projects mitigate their impact to the pedestrian and transit systems downtown.  I brought this up yesterday, but there was no response.

If the parking obligation situation with the Landing called for 300 dedicated spaces, why not just go up another floor or two to accommodate them?  I know it increases the construction costs but Suntrust is getting nearly 50% of the costs to construct the garage from the City.

Another interesting fact in this issue is that the agreement with Project Riverwatch (Kuhn's project) was a grant of $3.5 million upon completion of a 900-space garage that provided 300 daily public spaces.  They still weren't dedicated exclusively to the Landing.

It does beg the question - does it make sense to increase the size, and be done with the Landing issue forever?

[thelakelander]

^Did they change that from the Humana deal, which did call for dedicated spaces?  Also, did Sleiman ever agree to that deal or was it modified without the Landing's input?

Has anybody brought forth an argument about inconsistency between the Landing and this dead zone; that is, I thought a main problem of the Landing was that it turned its back on downtown, that it should be opened up in the middle?  How well can the Landing embrace the rest of an active (hopefully increasing) downtown and create a synergy?  Unless I'm missing something this seems asinine to me.

Yes, what happens on the south side of the garage will be a critical component of downtown's future.  The intersection of Water and Hogan Streets really should be a high activity zone and major destination point in the heart of downtown.

[tufsu1]

just out of curiosity....what would stop a retail space from just turning the building on Hogan to go north/south...in essence, Lake shows that a small CVS needs 35' in width....the space along Hogan will be 38'

[thelakelander]

That CVS footprint was a 75' x 134' box.  To accommodate the square footage, you'd be requiring a retailer to basically develop a special set design that would struggle to fit a typical interior layout at 38' x 263' to accommodate the same amount of desired square footage.  Complicating the matter would be the central access drive to the garage off Hogan Street, which further splits the useable space.  Given that retailers have several options when it comes to site selection, the odd ball space most likely loses out in the site selection process.



Looking at this site plan, I'd say it would be better to shift the Hogan Street entrance to the far right which would combine the odd ball retail section in the process.

[JaxNative68]

It was approved 3-1.  Chris Flagg voted against it because he believes the product isn't best suited for that piece of property.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-06/story/city-board-oks-concept-parking-garage-across-jacksonville-landing

Ashish Bahl, a Parador principal, said the 65 percent occupancy rate is not an arbitrary number.
“That's the point when we make money, and we’re more than happy to funnel it back into Jacksonville,” he said.

The parking garage could fulfill the city’s long-standing obligation to provide parking for the Landing, if the mall’s ownership agreed. In that case, the city would earmark up to $132,500 per year to Parador for a maximum payout of almost $1.6 million for a parking validation program that would give discounted parking to Landing patrons.

The validation program would begin five years after the garage is built. The Landing owner, Toney Sleiman, so far has not agreed to let the proposed garage fulfill the city’s obligation.

Chris Flagg is the only one on that board with any sense and a true planning/design background.  To bad he is outnumbered by idiots.

[fieldafm]

just out of curiosity....what would stop a retail space from just turning the building on Hogan to go north/south...in essence, Lake shows that a small CVS needs 35' in width....the space along Hogan will be 38'

No, they need much bigger than that








All of these examples wouldn't fit on that site.

I'll have to dig up some pictures I have on my camera of a few Staples urban design layouts... same thing. 

38' would work for like a Subway franchise... but simply moving the garage closer to the Suntrust Building would allow for a 70' setback for future retail. 

That would allow you to even construct housing, like this example in nearby Orlando:

[fieldafm]

Has anybody brought forth an argument about inconsistency between the Landing and this dead zone; that is, I thought a main problem of the Landing was that it turned its back on downtown, that it should be opened up in the middle?  How well can the Landing embrace the rest of an active (hopefully increasing) downtown and create a synergy?  Unless I'm missing something this seems asinine to me.

Yes, what happens on the south side of the garage will be a critical component of downtown's future.  The intersection of Water and Hogan Streets really should be a high activity zone and major destination point in the heart of downtown.

Parador has an option to buy the adjoining property at Sisters City Plaza fronting the Landing.  At one point, I understood that Marriot had looked at a potential hotel there.  That deal fell through (Marriot has dangled their carrot in front of quite a few horses downtown, you'll hear about another one very soon).  But the thought would be that you could close down that little circular closed off street at Hogan/Water and have a decently sized triangular layout for something.

And JDog, that architect that bored me to death talking about what an urban environment should look like... said that in other cities he has seen spaces like the one proposed here be a place 'where sculptors could sculpt all day'.  I guess he's more well traveled than I.  I can't imagine artists jumping ship from CORK to come down and setup outdoor living studios to sculpt things in the hot sun downtown (underneath the 'shade' of palm trees).

Also when asked what materials will the future retail be made from, the answer was 'either pre-cast concrete or stucco, whatever is more reas- umm practi-  umm umm'  at which point I blurted out 'cheaper'  to which he finally finished his sentence with 'less cost prohibitive'

Lake and I both gave them great examples to go off of.  I don't know what happened in the workshop, but it's obvious that they didn't study those examples too closely. 


Remember, taxpayers are subsidizing this.  I have no problem with the developer wanting a parking garage for his building.  They simply just need to a) construct it according to the minimum design standards downtown (which are far less restrictive than virtually ALL downtown areas) b) not take taxpayer money from a dedicated pot to satisfy a 20 year long legal requirement to provide parking to the Landing to pay for half of the construction cost  and c) don't allow some arbitrary occupancy rate designed to mitigate the risk to the developer as the impetus to receiving TAXPAYER money to finance this project


Downtown, the taxpayers and the entire city of Jacksonville simply deserve better.