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

[simms3]

We'll see how NIMBY the area is.  I used to fantasize about redeveloping this site myself...I'm very short on the local demographics and politics of the area, and in-place infrastructure is non-supportive.  Have to be very careful how to proceed, and then there's the whole debt issue and capital commitments (have to pitch Jacksonville, Ortega/Avondale, the site, brick/mortar retail, for sale condos in arguably the worst condo market ever, etc to lenders and depending on whether your equity is fully discretionary or not...even if it's not, you likely have to be your own equity and sponsorship given the above).

This would be a luxury rental development, not condos.

Could be even trickier - people in the area are averse to luxury multitenant units (look at sales at Ortega Landing - what a vomit of sales velocity and pricing that was).  If people can't afford or don't desire luxury 2+BR condos in the area, I wonder what would make them have a different opinion of luxury rentals (which undoubtedly will exceed monthly cost of a mortgage for a similar unit for sale).  There aren't yet many or any comps for luxury rentals in the area, so it will be interesting to see how 5000 Towne leases up (far fewer units in that one).

There is a cautionary tale from our larger neighbor to the north (Atlanta), where developers had an investment thesis that residents of Buckhead currently in large estates would prefer to exchange square footage and land for an easier to maintain luxury condo...many developers lost millions (even tens of millions in one case).  That's Buckhead where condos have actually sold in fair quantity in the $2-$6+M range in the past.  Now they are luxury rentals in many cases, just now leasing up as the economy comes back...recapped or repurchased in foreclosure for a smaller basis and rental rates are still $2-$4psf for these units (all basically in-line with "replacement cost" depending on sale pricing assumptions).  The renters are all young and the entertainment and employment options nearby are dense...without the huge employment center that Buckhead has become and the local bar scene which has come back since it was destroyed in the early 2000s, there would be no renters as the old rich farts clearly prefer their homes.  Good luck to the local Jax developers. 

[simms3]

So it appears the residential will be 166 units.  Good (I doubt the site/demand could support more).  Averaging 1,700 SF (screams condo conversion to me...there is talk of an HOA, which will likely be paid for by landlord of apartments...does that get passed through?, and commercial tenants)

Developer to help pay for dredging Fishweir Creek ($800K) and install off-site lanscape (does that mean city ROW as depicted in rendering?).  HOA to maintain landscape (well of course, who else is going to - the city of Jax?  LoL).

Greater of 8 or 20% of constructed slips to be reserved for public (good).

All sounds fair to me

FYI

5.
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.

Here we go with the signs again...

Signs may be front-lit only. Neon signs and back-lit signs
are prohibited. These sign restrictions shall he included as terms in all
retail commercial leases. Any variance kom
these standards shall require
an Administrative Modification to the approved PUD and shall be noticed
to Riverside Avondale Preservation, Inc.
by certified mail.

And wow, RAP's reach is extensive...why the hell should they care about Ortega Village??  It's basically out of the historic distric and is far from historic itself - this is pretty extreme that they are a governing authority in any way for this section of the overlay.

Anyone else catch the glaring errors/vaguery here?

1.
Permitted uses and structures.
b.
Service
establishments such as barber and beauty shops, shoe repair shops,
restaurants, interior decorators, health clubs and gymnasiums, travel
agencies, dry cleaners, home equipment rental and similar uses.
c.
Banks, savings and loans, and other financial institutions and similar uses,
including walk-up ATM
facilities.
d.
All types of professional and business offices.
2.
Prohibited uses. Any and all forms
of drive-thru
facilities, including but not
limited to drug stores, financial
institutions, dry cleaners, and restaurants, shall be
strictly prohibited.

[fieldafm]

Ortega Landing is a piece of sh!t building and the epitome of the shoddy condo construction of the boom. 

[fieldafm]

I'm well aware what the plans were (I had to move to the marina next door).  They had problems when the market was good, which is saying something. 

And yes, that thing was constructed using cheap crap. 

[simms3]

VillaRiva highrise is the local luxury condo success story (the townhomes not so much I don't think).  The Old San Jose development also ended up stalled and is now proceeding with caution.  The other luxury projects proposed or at one point UC in the Beauclerc area stalled.  I wish them luck - luxury seems to have been difficult in Jax outside of the beaches (where they also still ran into trouble), and luxury rentals are still pretty green/foreign to the market (@ 1,700 SF on avg per unit this just screams condo conversion, though...I'm going to consider these rent to own units I think, condos for all intents and purposes).

[grimss]

Simms, the info you're quoting comes from the 2006 PUD, not from what is being proposed now. Look at Trixie's original post to see the 2013 request--up to 350 units, with average s.f. in the 900s. The developer wants to (more than) double the size of what was approved before.

So it appears the residential will be 166 units.  Good (I doubt the site/demand could support more).  Averaging 1,700 SF (screams condo conversion to me...there is talk of an HOA, which will likely be paid for by landlord of apartments...does that get passed through?, and commercial tenants)

Developer to help pay for dredging Fishweir Creek ($800K) and install off-site lanscape (does that mean city ROW as depicted in rendering?).  HOA to maintain landscape (well of course, who else is going to - the city of Jax?  LoL).

Greater of 8 or 20% of constructed slips to be reserved for public (good).

All sounds fair to me

FYI

5.
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.

Here we go with the signs again...

Signs may be front-lit only. Neon signs and back-lit signs
are prohibited. These sign restrictions shall he included as terms in all
retail commercial leases. Any variance kom
these standards shall require
an Administrative Modification to the approved PUD and shall be noticed
to Riverside Avondale Preservation, Inc.
by certified mail.

And wow, RAP's reach is extensive...why the hell should they care about Ortega Village??  It's basically out of the historic distric and is far from historic itself - this is pretty extreme that they are a governing authority in any way for this section of the overlay.

Anyone else catch the glaring errors/vaguery here?

1.
Permitted uses and structures.
b.
Service
establishments such as barber and beauty shops, shoe repair shops,
restaurants, interior decorators, health clubs and gymnasiums, travel
agencies, dry cleaners, home equipment rental and similar uses.
c.
Banks, savings and loans, and other financial institutions and similar uses,
including walk-up ATM
facilities.
d.
All types of professional and business offices.
2.
Prohibited uses. Any and all forms
of drive-thru
facilities, including but not
limited to drug stores, financial
institutions, dry cleaners, and restaurants, shall be
strictly prohibited.

[MEGATRON]

Is anybody going to Fight for the Commander Apartments? I like this old building I feel it's getting a bum rap. 

[fieldafm]

Simms, the info you're quoting comes from the 2006 PUD, not from what is being proposed now. Look at Trixie's original post to see the 2013 request--up to 350 units, with average s.f. in the 900s. The developer wants to (more than) double the size of what was approved before.

With all due respect Jean(and I do highlight the word respect), I think the overall scale has the possibility to be immensly more compatiable with the neighborhood under the newest proposal versus the previous plan.  That being said, why rally everyone to oppose something that doesn't even have a site plan or completed PUD application yet?  Why not wait to see how the actual plans fit into the context of the neighborhood first before bemoaning about how much this project will damage the neighborhood?

Not too long ago, that site had a Winn Dixie and a Penny Burger... so in context, the site has always had an auto-intensive use.  A mixed use development (with public waterfront access) that contributes to the walkable characteristics of the neighborhood is certainly better than a large tower surrounded by surface parking along the riverfront and a strip mall with more surface parking fronting the main thoroughfare (or large grocery store with surface parking along the street and river, which was a previous use).

I urge everyone to be fair and let the process unfold a little further before reacting.

[grimss]

I do believe the neighborhood is open to seeing what Balanky proposes; after all, many of us worked with him back in 2006 to find a workable project that the neighborhood could support.  What emerged in 2006--after much blood, sweat and tears, I can promise you--was a project that most of us got behind.

In my last post, I was simply trying to clarify for Simms that his assessment of the project--and I always appreciate reading his posts, because he's so knowledgeable in these matters--appears to have been based on the 2006 PUD that Diane posted, rather than the 2013 proposal. Until the developer provides more specificity, all we really have to go on is the written description in the PUD application dated March 21, 2013, which asks for 350 units, a maximum tower height of 170 feet (same height the Commander is now), a maximum village parcel height of 80 feet, and a minimum of 560 parking spaces. I don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.

[fieldafm]

I don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.

It would be very odd if the developer didnt figure out what the max would be and work back a site plan from there(that's just as much of a financial concern as it is a form-based concern, probably more so).  That's my main point, the due dilligence is the same whether the end product is contextually sensitive to the qualities the neighborhood values or not.  Additionally, the deadlines for the PUD application (should be changed) aligned in such a way that the process is unfolding as it is now (the alternative would have cut out virtually any public participation).  Having someone in Planning going around telling the neighborhood that 600k sq ft of residential and 150k sq ft of commercial on the same lot (without any real context as to what that means) stirs up a prejudiced bias and is not fair (nor ethical).  All that does is poke a hornet's nest with a stick (I learned that painful lesson as a kid).  No one benefits in that situation. 

In the past month, I've heard from several people that are fuming mad about this potential use of the property... and nearly every one of their concerns are not based on accurate information.  It's even more curious because people are quoting very specific information about the project, yet a site plan has not been submitted.  That is a big problem if the source of that misinformation is immenating from Planning.  That does not create a level playing field for anyone (no matter what good intentions the parties may feel they have).   

I very much appreciate the process.  The end result should be benficial to the neighborhood (and our community at large).  I have not formed an opinion yet, b/c as you point out... there is an absence of specificity at this time.  I personally like and respect most everyone involved in the neighborhood and the development team on this matter, but a familiar trend is happening that I have a big problem with (no matter my personal opinion of any one person). 

[John P]

Speculation by development nimbys is entertaining. Hey I have a idea Lets wait to see the details!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shocking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[simms3]

Thanks Grimms!  I saw that PUD and incorrectly interpreted the person's post as outlining the current PUD - my bad.

[JeffreyS]

Couldn't agree more about needing a site plan before forming an opinion.  Once an opinion is formed it often becomes a line in the sand. Results in an I feel this project is bad(or good) so I do not need to listen to anymore details.  Some just won't consider anything else for prides sake after having stated an opinion( we have all experienced that watching posters on this site). 

When we get a site plan lets start a new thread and give everyone a chance to hit the reset button if they chose.

[KEGreene1]

What is the over/under on attendance for Monday's meeting?  Also, what is the over/under on those who will have already made up their minds before hearing/reading a single word of fact from the developers?

[Intuition Ale Works]

I don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.

It would be very odd if the developer didnt figure out what the max would be and work back a site plan from there(that's just as much of a financial concern as it is a form-based concern, probably more so).  That's my main point, the due dilligence is the same whether the end product is contextually sensitive to the qualities the neighborhood values or not.  Additionally, the deadlines for the PUD application (should be changed) aligned in such a way that the process is unfolding as it is now (the alternative would have cut out virtually any public participation).  Having someone in Planning going around telling the neighborhood that 600k sq ft of residential and 150k sq ft of commercial on the same lot (without any real context as to what that means) stirs up a prejudiced bias and is not fair (nor ethical).  All that does is poke a hornet's nest with a stick (I learned that painful lesson as a kid).  No one benefits in that situation. 

In the past month, I've heard from several people that are fuming mad about this potential use of the property... and nearly every one of their concerns are not based on accurate information.  It's even more curious because people are quoting very specific information about the project, yet a site plan has not been submitted.  That is a big problem if the source of that misinformation is immenating from Planning.  That does not create a level playing field for anyone (no matter what good intentions the parties may feel they have).   

I very much appreciate the process.  The end result should be benficial to the neighborhood (and our community at large).  I have not formed an opinion yet, b/c as you point out... there is an absence of specificity at this time.  I personally like and respect most everyone involved in the neighborhood and the development team on this matter, but a familiar trend is happening that I have a big problem with (no matter my personal opinion of any one person).

Agree 100% with Mike.

I wonder why we have not heard from "Trixie" in a while...