Huge new development proposed on Fishweir Creek and St. John's Ave

[Dog Walker]

You are getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions, Megatron.  99 units to 350 units  and 600,000 sq. ft. factually qualifies as a "huge" increase and thread headings are always calculated to attract attention.

I am not "firmly" against the project.  Like you, I do have concerns about it and want it to be a plus for the neighborhood and the creek, not a negative.  I take the position of wanting the developers in general to prove that they are going to do something right because they have so frequently screwed things up in their pursuit of every last penny.

It is very encouraging to me that the owners of this particular property are the ones who want it redeveloped and that it is not being flipped to make a quick buck.  They are obviously long-term investors looking for positive cash flow and appreciating value.  They have already owned it for a long time.  We still need to hold their feet to the fire to make this work for everyone and that every aspect of the impact is examined carefully.

[Cheshire Cat]

You are getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions, Megatron.  99 units to 350 units  and 600,000 sq. ft. factually qualifies as a "huge" increase and thread headings are always calculated to attract attention.

I am not "firmly" against the project.  Like you, I do have concerns about it and want it to be a plus for the neighborhood and the creek, not a negative.  I take the position of wanting the developers in general to prove that they are going to do something right because they have so frequently screwed things up in their pursuit of every last penny.

It is very encouraging to me that the owners of this particular property are the ones who want it redeveloped and that it is not being flipped to make a quick buck.  They are obviously long-term investors looking for positive cash flow and appreciating value.  They have already owned it for a long time.  We still need to hold their feet to the fire to make this work for everyone and that every aspect of the impact is examined carefully.

Dog Walker, The numbers you keep using are incorrect.  What you have been sharing are figures regarding what would be allowable on the site, but not what the developer plans on building.   There is and has been no plan on the table to build out 600,000 sq ft., in fact some heads have been shaking in disbelief over the repeated use of this number.  Nor is there a plan to "actually" build out 350 apartments and 42,000 sq ft of retail.  My guess is that they are asking for the max now while the approval process is ongoing rather than go through another entire process down the road should other expansions be undertaken.   I have vetted the 600k number and have it confirmed as incorrect first hand via city planning.    See the article below which features the developers words as well.

TU 

The application to the city calls for 350 apartments and 42,000 square feet of retail space -- but Mike Balanky, the developer behind plans to tear down the Commander Apartments and St. Johns Village on Fishweir Creek and build something new, said those are what the city allows, not what will end up on the site.

“Even if we could do that,” he said, “we wouldn’t.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-29/story/st-johns-avenue-development-raises-concerns-among-neighbors#ixzz2SGos0ipi

[Charles Hunter]

The best way for the developer to allay the fears of 350 units and 42,000 square feet of retail, is to come forward with an application with numbers matching what they intend to build.  Applying for the max with an "assurance" they don't really want that much does not lead to high levels of confidence from the folks living around the development.  Unfortunately, the bad actors in the Development Industry has made the phrase "trust us" meaningless, which hurts honest developers.

[Cheshire Cat]

The best way for the developer to allay the fears of 350 units and 42,000 square feet of retail, is to come forward with an application with numbers matching what they intend to build.  Applying for the max with an "assurance" they don't really want that much does not lead to high levels of confidence from the folks living around the development.  Unfortunately, the bad actors in the Development Industry has made the phrase "trust us" meaningless, which hurts honest developers.

That's true Charles but any business person who has navigated the hurdles of this type of project in the past knows that the prudent course of action is to ask for what is allowable under current building standards, overlays etc.. This seems to be precisely what the developer is doing with this PUD request.  Going at this piece meal or submitting or changing plans in order to quell nimby fears at this stage isn't a wise business decision.  It is understood in advance by anyone undertaking such an enterprise that dealing with the concerns of the public and the legislators that represent them is best done step by step as issues arise.

My point is that the developer at this stage has got to meet the requirements of ordinance during this process in order to get his PUD request approved.  If he lawfully and accurately meets the requests and requirements of the planning department officials then there is no valid reason to refuse this PUD request.  At this stage I would guess that the developer wants the process to go as smoothly as possible.  As such he and his rep's will likely listen to and respond to citizens concerns as they come up over time, but the planning department is who they need approval from right now and that is likely where their attention will be focused.

[fieldafm]

I just want to make clear that I have no direct financial or other interest in this project at this time... in the spirit of full disclosure.  I am however a: neighbor, former resident of the Commander and an advocate for the neighborhood.  I was asked to clarify that today. 

[Kaiser Soze]

I just want to make clear that I have no direct financial or other interest in this project at this time... in the spirit of full disclosure.  I am however a: neighbor, former resident of the Commander and an advocate for the neighborhood.  I was asked to clarify that today.

I just want to make it clear that I will oppose this project if the plan does not involve adult entertainment.

[Trixie]

Without regard to the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay, which governs the property in question, when is it appropriate on any property to "in fill" a more suburban residential neighborhood, that has but a smattering of commercial, and place a maximum high density residential and commercial mixed use development on the property?  And, if one "in fills" what is the best density for the "in fill", taking into consideration the current state of the surrounding areas, including the various environmental issues, road configurations, traffic concerns, surrounding schools, safety, etc.  Do you go for a goal of maxing out the use of the area in which you plop down the new development, such that you crush the relatively gentle uses of the surrounding areas?  Or, isn't there an option for having the vibrancy that is offered by a residential/mixed use development "in fill" and tempering it by a just consideration of the rights and safety of the surrounding property owners?

I hope the "soon to be released" proposed PUD for the St. Johns Village Center has a lesser maximum density than 350 residential units for the 5.86 acre site, which is not to say I am "anti-development".  I would consider supporting redevelopment of the St. Johns Village Center site with a mixed use project, if the maximum residential density stated in the PUD was more in keeping with the density of the Riverside/Avondale neighborhood in which the proposed development would sit and if the maximum specs of the building(s), such as the height, setbacks, etc., are in compliance with the mandates of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay.  So, what numbers do I think are appropriate as the maximum numbers in this PUD?  I am not sure.  I am trying to sort that out.  There are some interesting discussions here regarding the same.  I have appreciated your insights.  This conundrum is more in keeping with the tension between suburban versus urban, rather than just a mere "nimby" issue.

And, while certainly the design of the proposed redevelopment (the "St. Johns Village") will greatly impact how the development appears on the site and "fits in" with the neighborhood in a visual sense, the density is based on the number of residents, without regard to the details of the structures within which they are housed.  350 residential units is too dense a development for this site.

If in fact the developer never intends to build 350 residential units on the site, then he should not state that figure as his maximum number of residential units in his "soon to be released" proposed PUD. 

[Kaiser Soze]

Without regard to the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay, which governs the property in question, when is it appropriate on any property to "in fill" a more suburban residential neighborhood, that has but a smattering of commercial, and place a maximum high density residential and commercial mixed use development on the property?  And, if one "in fills" what is the best density for the "in fill", taking into consideration the current state of the surrounding areas, including the various environmental issues, road configurations, traffic concerns, surrounding schools, safety, etc.  Do you go for a goal of maxing out the use of the area in which you plop down the new development, such that you crush the relatively gentle uses of the surrounding areas?  Or, isn't there an option for having the vibrancy that is offered by a residential/mixed use development "in fill" and tempering it by a just consideration of the rights and safety of the surrounding property owners?

I hope the "soon to be released" proposed PUD for the St. Johns Village Center has a lesser maximum density than 350 residential units for the 5.86 acre site, which is not to say I am "anti-development".  I would consider supporting redevelopment of the St. Johns Village Center site with a mixed use project, if the maximum residential density stated in the PUD was more in keeping with the density of the Riverside/Avondale neighborhood in which the proposed development would sit and if the maximum specs of the building(s), such as the height, setbacks, etc., are in compliance with the mandates of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay.  So, what numbers do I think are appropriate as the maximum numbers in this PUD?  I am not sure.  I am trying to sort that out.  There are some interesting discussions here regarding the same.  I have appreciated your insights.  This conundrum is more in keeping with the tension between suburban versus urban, rather than just a mere "nimby" issue.

And, while certainly the design of the proposed redevelopment (the "St. Johns Village") will greatly impact how the development appears on the site and "fits in" with the neighborhood in a visual sense, the density is based on the number of residents, without regard to the details of the structures within which they are housed.  350 residential units is too dense a development for this site.

If in fact the developer never intends to build 350 residential units on the site, then he should not state that figure as his maximum number of residential units in his "soon to be released" proposed PUD.

I've thrown quite a few dollar bills at broads named Trixie.

[Cheshire Cat]

Trixie  If in fact the developer never intends to build 350 residential units on the site, then he should not state that figure as his maximum number of residential units in his "soon to be released" proposed PUD.

You make this statement based upon what? Your own view of what an investor and developer should do with their property, money and paid professionals working to get their own property approved, not just for today's development but what might be done later?  lol  Keep in mind I know the person and personality behind Trixie and do understand the line of thinking behind the statement, but what is not being understood or respected is that the investor and property owner can conduct their business as they see fit and in a way that makes their own investments stronger. So to state how they should handle their own PUD application is a bit much.  It appears this investor is planning ahead as would any good business person. 

It comes down to this.  In spite of what any outsider "thinks" a person should do regarding their own business plan and how they choose to word it, is no ones business but their own.  As it stands, the developer did say on record in the TU article that they do not intend to build out to the maximum stated in the PUD.  If I were them, I too would put the max allowed by ordinance and overlay into my initial PUD proposal.  It makes good business sense.  The public of course can have input into the project via their council representatives and during open discussions and forums.  What the public cannot do however is tell anyone how to handle their own investments or business process.  lol   That goes for Avondale, Ortega and Riverside peeps too.  No snark intended in my remarks here, just a dose of reality.  The PUD will come in and will be approved if all ordinance guidelines are met and this developer will have to deal with site challenges themselves to remain in keeping with the overlay, drainage and the like.  The current apartment building is over 5 floors is it not?  It is also dated and to my eye unattractive.  The current retail area is clumsy with a lousy parking area and access from St. Johns, both in and out.  It is my guess that whatever this developer has planned will be far more attractive and functional then what is there. So everyone, relax!

What I don't like seeing is the penchant for resistance and suspicion to the point of making any changes and improvements in Avondale or surrounding areas a royal pain in the backside for whom ever tries to do so.  If the traffic concerns and funding to mitigate dredging of the creek are in place according to what the ordinance requires, then everyone ought to sit back and let the process move along and comment when they actually know what the end product is proposed to be. 

[grimss]

The PUD application was submitted today. The elevation looks a lot like what was presented in 2005, but with the tower dropped from 185 feet (current PUD) to 170 feet (new PUD application). The density is spread onto the St. John's Village parcel, with two buildings up to 80 feet, and a five-story parking garage. Total requested residential units, 339, versus a total of 350 in the "bootleg" PUD (and compared to a total of 166 units approved in 2005 PUD). Total proposed square footage is still just under 600K, with an 85% lot coverage. Will post more when I see more.

[grimss]

Nothing in today's PUD about funding to mitigate dredging of the creek. 30+ pages, so still reviewing, but it seems to be one of the few alterations in an application that otherwise bears a lot of similarities to what we've seen before. Main difference appears to be the request to change the St. Johns Village parcel from CGC (20 residential units per acre) to HDR (up to 60 units per acre); HDR is the classification presently held by the Commander portion, so they're seeking to expand this land use to the rest of the property.

[grimss]

Kaiser Soze, sorry to report, nothing in the PUD suggest a titty bar. Long live SOS lounge . . . I guess.

[Spence]

merging minds....

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18329.msg327961/topicseen.html#new

AND

full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/2013/05/what-does-avondale-redevelopment.html

[ricker]

want a laugh?

http://www.seniorhousingnet.com/seniorliving-detail/eureka-garden-apartments_4000-st-johns-ave_jacksonville_fl_32205-523453?source=web

a 55+ subsidized assisted living community?
eh...why not.

StMarks episcopal was looking for a patch of dirt upon which to create a similar development.

Could be quite THE thing to "go nuts over"

We shall see.

[grimss]

ANNOUNCEMENT â€" TOWN HALL MEETING TONIGHT
From Jim Love's office:

A TOWN HALL MEETING, hosted by District 14 City Councilman Jim Love, will be held on Monday, May 13, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm, at the FSCJ Kent Campus Auditorium (Park St. & US-17),  for the purpose of discussing and gathering public input related to the proposed development and rezoning to PUD at 3946 & 4000 St. Johns Ave., “St. Johns Village”  (located near the intersection of St. Johns Ave. and Herschel St.).  The developer of this project and his representative, Mr. Steve Diebenow, will make a presentation, answer questions and receive suggestions from the public concerning this project.