A New Look for Avondale's St. Johns Village Project

[JeffreyS]

I like the development but given the exceptions the developer wants I would hold his feet to the fire on a few things.
Dredging the river
Public access to the riverfront.

[Josh]

Is part of the fear some people have that being new means all of the retail parcels will actually be occupied as opposed to the current state of St. Johns Village? I still haven't found ballmark numbers for how drastic the number of housing units and retail square footage may change over the current situation, even though this is all still up in the air.

Will dredging the creek destroy it as a "bird sanctuary?"

[grimss]

Is part of the fear some people have that being new means all of the retail parcels will actually be occupied as opposed to the current state of St. Johns Village? I still haven't found ballmark numbers for how drastic the number of housing units and retail square footage may change over the current situation, even though this is all still up in the air.

Will dredging the creek destroy it as a "bird sanctuary?"

Although these numbers are likely to change yet again, the current proposal is for 300 residential units (1BR, 2BR and 3BR), 3 buildings (set into one multi-wing tower varying from 7 to 14 stories--max height of 170 feet--and two three-story buildings) and 12,000 s.f. of commercial. That compares to 90 units in the Commander Aparments presently (94% occupied) , and some 45,000 sf of commercial (mix of office space and retail; about 70% occupied).

[tufsu1]

^ and the general traffic impacts of the new proposal would be equal or even slightly less than existing

Rough daily estimates from ITE (not including interanl capture reduction for interaction of uses)

Current - 600 residential trips + 1900 retail trips = 2500 total
Proposed - 1950 residential trips + 500 retail trips = 2450 total

[fieldafm]

^ and the general traffic impacts of the new proposal would be equal or even slightly less than existing

Rough daily estimates from ITE

Current - 600 residential trips + 1900 retail trips = 2500 total
Proposed - 1950 residential trips + 500 retail trips = 2450 total

This is the key element missing from all of the arbitrary 'intensity concerns'.

According to how we measure traffic impact, the redevelopment will not have a negative impact on auto trips generated.  The site has always had an auto intensive use (it was a grocery store at one point, think about that in terms of how much auto trips the Riverside Publix generates).  Structured parking and dense, mixed use development (as opposed to what is there now) are key elements in maintaining (and even enhancing in this case) the walkable characterisitcs of the neighborhood.


Now about that roundabout at St Johns/Herschel in order to make the intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists...  If RAP wants to push something really useful, that could be a really big deal.  There is an opportunity to make this intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists(I personally walk/bike it nearly daily).  If it's not done now, it will be decades before such an opportunity arises again.

The developer could build on any of some 50 undeveloped but designated HDR parcels that are available.  A number of appropriate sites exist in the city core.

Telling an existing landowner they can't redevelop the property they already own isn't good policy in regards to property rights.  Driving a more dense, compact mixed use development somewhere else isn't good land use policy and certainly is not fiscally responsible for our community.  There is a reason the City has budget problems, and the biggest culprit is land use policy that encourages development that yields ad valorum revenue per acre that is unsustainably low.   

If someone wanted to put a large 200 unit apartment complex along Oak Street behind the Shoppes of Avondale... I would agree that this would be incompatible with the surrounding context.  I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that this site's redevelopment is somehow contextually inappropriate. 

should be within 1/2 mile of an existing or proposed rapid transit stop

There aren't any true rapid transit stops in all of Jacksonville.  Matter of fact, this site was part of a streetcar commercial district (ever wonder why Herschel is so wide?).  They ripped that up decades ago. 

[JeffreyS]

I wouldn't call them arbitrary likely uninformed would be a better description. Even though I am for the project I just assumed it would cause heavier traffic.

Lake you were at the meeting yesterday were any traffic figures current and projected used?

[grimss]

Now about that roundabout at St Johns/Herschel in order to make the intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists...  If RAP wants to push something really useful, that could be a really big deal.  There is an opportunity to make this intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists(I personally walk/bike it nearly daily).  If it's not done now, it will be decades before such an opportunity arises again.

A roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

An interesting statement that I learned last night is that, because the developer would get credits for what's already on the site, the proposed new development would not be required to pay any mobility impact fees. Can anyone explain why that's the case? Is it purely based on the traffic study, which purports to show a reduction in daily trips?

[cline]

Will dredging the creek destroy it as a "bird sanctuary?"

Doubtful.  The birds won't go away after the dredging.  Although the geese (nuisance species) that currently frolic on the silt mounds in the middle of the creek at low tide might have to find a new place to hang out.  Dredging will allow even more wildlife to come further up into the creek.  Heck, we might even be able to see manatees there.

[cline]

An interesting statement that I learned last night is that, because the developer would get credits for what's already on the site, the proposed new development would not be required to pay any mobility impact fees. Can anyone explain why that's the case? Is it purely based on the traffic study, which purports to show a reduction in daily trips

You pretty much answered your own question.  He's getting credit for trips already on site.

A roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

It is a shame that the roundabout was derailed by one property owner.  That is a dangerous intersection for peds and could be made far safer utilizing a roundabout.  Would also slow down traffic through that area as well.  I'm sure there are plenty of parcels that the flower shop could relocate to in the neighborhood. 

[fieldafm]

A roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

That's a pretty wide intersection.  Perhaps the developer could pay the civil engineer for a quick roundabout plan as a sign of goodwill.  I would think the existing area is wide enough that the old Skinner's Dairy could remain, perhaps cutting a small circle out of the existing bulb out directly in front of her shop, but not encroaching on the actual building.   

[thelakelander]

I wouldn't call them arbitrary likely uninformed would be a better description. Even though I am for the project I just assumed it would cause heavier traffic.

Lake you were at the meeting yesterday were any traffic figures current and projected used?

Last night, it was mentioned that the developer has already conducted a traffic study. This came as a result of crowd concerns about more traffic and the need for an additional stoplight for the project. The development team advised those concerned to contact Steve Smith at COJ for a copy.

[If_I_Loved_you]

An interesting statement that I learned last night is that, because the developer would get credits for what's already on the site, the proposed new development would not be required to pay any mobility impact fees. Can anyone explain why that's the case? Is it purely based on the traffic study, which purports to show a reduction in daily trips

You pretty much answered your own question.  He's getting credit for trips already on site.

A roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

It is a shame that the roundabout was derailed by one property owner.  That is a dangerous intersection for peds and could be made far safer utilizing a roundabout.  Would also slow down traffic through that area as well.  I'm sure there are plenty of parcels that the flower shop could relocate to in the neighborhood.

I hope the person that has this flower shop owns the property and isn't a renter? And how dare you say "I'm sure there are plenty of parcels that the flower shop could relocate to in the neighborhood." How about telling this greedy developer to make his project smaller and if a roundabout is in order move it into his property? and leave the old Skinner's Dairy alone!

[grimss]

You can find a copy of the traffic study here: http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/traffic-study.pdf

[Trixie]

There are site specific concerns regarding traffic safety that are NOT addressed in the traffic study.  The Applicant's traffic study looks at "road capacity", or number of cars on the road. 

Here's Metro's prior article about this redevelopment proposal, so the chat about this is all in one place:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=18183.0

[If_I_Loved_you]

You can find a copy of the traffic study here: http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/traffic-study.pdf

Thanks for this info.