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

[JeffreyS]

Until we see a proposed site plan there shouldn't be any Suport, opposition or zoning sides taken.

[thelakelander]

^That's pretty much my position at this point.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[I-10east]

Can anyone elaborate on the condition of the Commander Apts? That high rise has only been there since 1961; I'm sorry at that age the 'out of place comments' like it's some johnny come lately goes outta the window IMO. Just because it's tall and may need a renovation it should be removed, I don't understand that logic. If it was located DT, most of yall would be raising hell hearing news about a potential high rise demo. 

[Noone]

What is the Waterways component if any? Very interesting observations about dock permitting at the last Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting. Anybody want to write a check for a buck to 2009-442 the Artificial Reef Trust Fund? It's a Trust fund.

[fieldafm]

Sounds a bit premature to have an opinion on a development that hasn't even completed a site plan, nonetheless a PUD application yet.

Knowing about development though, I'm curious about this 150,000 sq ft retail number being thrown around.  My educated guess based on general knowledge in the commercial and residential real estate field and familiarity with the site (I am a former resident of the Commander) would put the retail number around maybe a third of that or less.  It would also seem highly likely that a development with those characteristics would include structured parking (IE parking garage).  This would eliminate the large swaths of surface parking along the waterfront (especially behind the existing Commander building), which would be better for Fishweir Creek.  And seeing as though Balanky is involved, I'd also be willing to guess that runoff from the site would also be reduced from some kind of natural effluent method.  Looking at the kinds of projects getting favorable financing... I'd also be willing to guess that any retail portion would front the street(making the development more walkable), not be hidden by poorly maintained surface parking. 

I'd also be curious to take a look at the final application to see how many auto trips are being calculated.  Knowing the site's history... It has always had an 'intensive' use.  At one point, there was a Winn Dixie there. 

Will be interested to see the actual site plan.

[thelakelander]

A Walmart Supercenter is around 150,000 square feet.



It's hard to imagine that much retail going on that site....even if it were vertical. The traffic count and visibility on St. Johns Avenue doesn't justify that type of retail investment in the area. I assume, once a conceptual plan is actually created, this will end up much smaller than feared by some of our posters.  In the meantime, for those worried about this rezoning, how much residential and retail would you find acceptable?

[fsujax]

The Bank of America tower is a little over 600,000 sq ft.

[Dog Walker]

Part of this seems to go into the center of Fishweir Creek.  Interested to see if there is a marina component as part of the plan.

I hope the 600,000 figure is wrong!  Even though the site is bigger than the site of the Bank of America Tower so it wouldn't have to be as tall, that's still a BIG building.

The engineering for a building that big on what is fill soil is going to be very challenging.

[Captain Zissou]

The development that was proposed for this site during the boom was pretty massive, but overall looked pretty positive for the area. That site is outdated and needs something done to bring it up to date

[Trixie]

Even without the release of the new PUD yet, the stakes are already high on the development of the St. Johns Village Center.  Please keep in mind that a developer may use the current PUD, which is number 2005-1330-E to develop the property.  The 2005 PUD was put in place before the enactment of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay.

You may download a copy of the 2005 PUD here, using the "archived PUDs" tab:

http://maps.coj.net/luzap/ArchiveZo.aspx

Here are a few "cut and pastes" from the current PUD, which is PUD 2005-1330-E:

Whereas...

(g) The tower structure shall contain no more than 100
residential units. The reduction to 100 units reflects a reduction
of the mass of the tower by 25 units (average 1,700 square feet per
unit) from the previously proposed 125-unit plan.

II.  Summary of the Plan -

The maximum permitted uses within the PUD shall be: 166 residential units and 20,000
enclosed square feet of retail commercial uses. Of the 166 residential units, 100 will be located
on the 2.56-acre Commander parcel (which has a residential land use classification of HDR) and
the remaining 66 will be located on the 3.3-acre St. Johns Village parcel (which has a
commercial land use classification of CGC).

III. Description of Permitted Uses

(B) (5) - Multi-family residential -

Maximum height of structures.  The existing Commander Tower (which is 17-
stories tall) will be replaced with a new condominium high-rise (the tallest portion
of which--located on the southwest portion of the Commander parcel--will be 17-
stories tall [approximately 185 feet in height above grade around the building
footprint]). The waterfront "wing" of the building (facing South) will step down
in height to 15 stories [approximately 165 feet in height] and then to 13 stories
[approximately 145 feet in height]. The waterfront wing of the building will also
include a series of 4-story townhomes [approximately 60 feet in height] in front of
the towers, thereby offsetting the height and scale of the taller buildings. The 4-
story townhomes will also be located along the eastern edge of the parcel, along
the waterfront, as well as along the western "wing" of the building. The western
wing of the building will step down in height to 14 stories [approximately 155
feet in height], then to 11 stories [approximately 125 feet in height], then to 9
stories (approximately 105 feet in height) and then to 3 stories (approximately 45
feet in height).

The remaining structures (on the St. Johns Village parcel) will "step down" in
height toward Herschel Street (five stories and four stories, respectively). A
detailed depiction of the respective heights of the proposed buildings is set forth
in the "Building Height Exhibit" attached hereto as Exhibit "E-3." Any variance
in height by more than 8 feet from that depicted in Exhibit E-3 shall require an
Administrative Modification to the approved PUD. Any variance in height by
more than 20 feet shall require a Minor Modification to the approved PUD.

(D)(2) Overall PUD Design Criteria -

Maximum lot coverage by all buildings. The maximum parcel coverage by all
buildings shall be eighty-five percent (85%).

IV  PUD Review Criteria -

(D)  Allocation of Residential Land Use. The HDR land use permits residential
development at a density of up to sixty (60) units per gross acre. The proposed
PUD permits up to 20 dwelling units per acre on the portion of the site designated
with a CGC land use classification, and up to 39 units per acre on the portion of
site with the HDR land use classification. Both of these densities are within the
permitted residential allocations provided in the Comprehensive Plan.

The 2005 PUD shown above also required the developer to conduct a traffic study and deposit $800,000 for the dredging of Fishweir Creek.

The 2005 PUD was never considered for verification.  (I.e., before a developer receives building permits under a PUD, there must be verification for substantial compliance with the PUD.)  The exhibits for the 2005 PUD may be obtained from the Office of Legislative Services at 630-1414, as they do not appear to have been filed for on-line review with the PUD archives.

I think it is wise to be concerned sooner rather than later as this new PUD moves through the City's administrative process; the stakes are very high.

[cline]

I thought the site plan from the 2005 application was pretty decent.  That one had a few different buildings though, sounds like this one is only going to have one.  I'll withhold judgement until I see the new site plan.  I think it would be great if they're still required to contribute to the dredging of Fishweir. 

[fieldafm]

I think it is wise to be concerned sooner rather than later as this new PUD moves through the City's administrative process; the stakes are very high.

As long as the word 'concerned' doesn't mean 'opposition', then I completely agree.  Saying the 'stakes are high' and 'If they ask for a 10 and eventually get a 6, when the property should only support a 3, then it's not OK!' is nothing but unproductive hyperbole.  Rushing to conclusions and quoting square feet is premature.  I've found that after 11 years in the industry that one should be honest and stick to the facts. 

If someone in Planning is quoting numbers for public consumption when neither a site plan nor complete PUD application has been submitted, then that is a REALLY bad thing... like you should probably lose your job kind of bad thing.  If that is indeed happening, then perhaps an internal investigation is warranted.  Conjecture only leads to people jumping to misinformed conclusions and is quite frankly not fair to any party involved.  That's simply hysteria and the neighborhood will never move forward in a positive direction based on people whipping up hysteria. 

Seeing as though I am a neighbor to this development, I will be glad to reach a conclusion once the pen actually hits the paper.

[simms3]

Way too much for that site.  I'm sure if the proposal ends up being half that size, it will still be phased.  A lender has to look at sponsorship here, and do its own due diligence, so I wouldn't be too worried that some huge calamity is going to be coming to that site any time soon.  I'd be happy with a complete makeover of what's already on the site, and no structured parking - doesn't fit the area.

One also doesn't have to look much further than the Shoppes, Riverside, Hershel, or any commercial area in town to realize that retail, especially high end retail does not do well on the westside.  Restaurants are doing well, and office space for professional uses could probably do well (will local practices pay new construction rents, though?).

Overall  the area does need a cleanup.  The original proposal called for city help in putting a roundabout at the intersection there and cleaning up the sidewalks and landscaping, which is really much of what the area needs to make it more attractive to residents and businesses and appear less grimy.

[tufsu1]

A replacement developer for the residential portion of the Pope & Land project has been found.  That project is anticipated to be under construction by the end of this summer. 

seems they've already trucked in a bunch of dirt to raise the site up and level it...unless it's to fill back in after ash removal

[Intuition Ale Works]

I think it is wise to be concerned sooner rather than later as this new PUD moves through the City's administrative process; the stakes are very high.

As long as the word 'concerned' doesn't mean 'opposition', then I completely agree.  Saying the 'stakes are high' and 'If they ask for a 10 and eventually get a 6, when the property should only support a 3, then it's not OK!' is nothing but unproductive hyperbole.  Rushing to conclusions and quoting square feet is premature.  I've found that after 11 years in the industry that one should be honest and stick to the facts. 

If someone in Planning is quoting numbers for public consumption when neither a site plan nor complete PUD application has been submitted, then that is a REALLY bad thing... like you should probably lose your job kind of bad thing.  If that is indeed happening, then perhaps an internal investigation is warranted.  Conjecture only leads to people jumping to misinformed conclusions and is quite frankly not fair to any party involved.  That's simply hysteria and the neighborhood will never move forward in a positive direction based on people whipping up hysteria. 

Seeing as though I am a neighbor to this development, I will be glad to reach a conclusion once the pen actually hits the paper.

There is obviously someone in the COJ planning apartment with an agenda and a big mouth.

Our city deserves better.