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

[fieldafm]

Take a look at the difference in scale.














Seems to me to be a pretty big improvement in terms of context from those renderings.  Furthermore, land use will not change to allow for HDR.   Another interesting characteristic: 46% total lot coverage nor is there an increase in projected traffic count based on the universally standard ITE trip generation rates.  When you look at the actual data instead of listening to some of the subjective fear mongering put out by some (my neighbors are all in favor of it), the 'intensity' claims kind of go out the window.

[dougskiles]

Balanky and his team presented their latest set of plans last Thursday, September 19th. Highlights: 3 residential buildings, 260 units, 1 commercial building with 10,000 s.f. retail, max height five stories, dropping request for land use change on SJV parcel as they believe development, as presently configured, doesn't require it.

The revised plans can be viewed here: http://commander-rezoning.com/2013/09/24/additional-site-revisions-dated-91913/.  Councilman Love will hold another Town Meeting with the community on October 9th.

Grimss, you are doing a great job keeping everyone informed.  Thanks.

I would also like to add that the developer is willing to put the northbound lane of St Johns Avenue on a road diet.  This 22' single lane would reduce to 12' with a new wider sidewalk and streetscape.

[grimss]

Balanky and his team presented their latest set of plans last Thursday, September 19th. Highlights: 3 residential buildings, 260 units, 1 commercial building with 10,000 s.f. retail, max height five stories, dropping request for land use change on SJV parcel as they believe development, as presently configured, doesn't require it.

The revised plans can be viewed here: http://commander-rezoning.com/2013/09/24/additional-site-revisions-dated-91913/.  Councilman Love will hold another Town Meeting with the community on October 9th.

Grimss, you are doing a great job keeping everyone informed.  Thanks.

I would also like to add that the developer is willing to put the northbound lane of St Johns Avenue on a road diet.  This 22' single lane would reduce to 12' with a new wider sidewalk and streetscape.

Thanks for the kind words, Doug. Although I can't claim to be utterly impartial about this project, I do think it's important for everyone to have all the facts--without bias--and allow them to make their own judgements.

One question about the "road diet"--willl that allow room for a bike lane? And, while I love the idea of the wider sidewalks, I do have  concerns about narrowing the road just as folks are moving onto St. Johns, with its problematic curves. Any insight into how this might work?  Thanks.

[Charles Hunter]

Isn't St. Johns Ave a state road though there?  Have they talked to the folks at FDOT?

[dougskiles]

Isn't St. Johns Ave a state road though there?  Have they talked to the folks at FDOT?

Yes.  In fact, FDOT engineers came up with the idea.  This section of road is only that wide because of an old design.  It would never be built that wide in the current configuration of travel lanes.

One question about the "road diet"--willl that allow room for a bike lane? And, while I love the idea of the wider sidewalks, I do have  concerns about narrowing the road just as folks are moving onto St. Johns, with its problematic curves. Any insight into how this might work?  Thanks.

Most traffic engineers will tell you that narrowing the road reduces the speed, which in turn would make the curves safer too.  The big winners are the pedestrians.  Currently there is practically no curb separating the sidewalk from the road and the sidewalk is only about 4-5' wide.

There would be plenty of room for a bike lane in the future.  I asked FDOT about this and they would only put in a bike lane when they could do a longer portion.  Typically you don't want to have a bike lane that is only one block long.

[Charles Hunter]

Cool!

[thelakelander]

Hmm, the urbanist in me kind of wishes there was a little more density but I understand why it's being reduced.  It's also good to see them work within the existing confines of the overlay.  Since retail is being dramatically reduced, I guess this means most of the tenants there today, won't be coming back.  Hopefully, those that aren't a part of this redevelopment plan will seek other properties within the neighborhood to relocate. So does this kill all the remaining opposition now?

[fieldafm]

And, while I love the idea of the wider sidewalks, I do have  concerns about narrowing the road just as folks are moving onto St. Johns, with its problematic curves. Any insight into how this might work?

When I lived at the Commander, they hadn't yet shrunk the lanes on St Johns and cars went pretty fast through those S curves b/c they could use all of the entire width of that very wide road.  Late at night, you could hear motorcyles tear through that fun little stretch of road as fast as possible.  It literally reminded me of the race tracks at Roebling Road and Road Atlanta... compare that to the much less wide S turns with very narrow shoulders at the much slower road track at Gainesville Raceway, and anyone that has any automotive racing experience can tell you that less road means less speed.

I think we can agree that the road diet on St Johns further up the street has worked very well in calming speeds down.  Therefore, that would be a good example about 400 feet away of how such a reduced road width would reduce vehicular speeds.

I still believe in my heart of hearts that a roundabout is sorely needed at the Herschel/St Johns intersection.

[cline]

Isn't St. Johns Ave a state road though there?  Have they talked to the folks at FDOT?

Yes.  In fact, FDOT engineers came up with the idea.  This section of road is only that wide because of an old design.  It would never be built that wide in the current configuration of travel lanes.

One question about the "road diet"--willl that allow room for a bike lane? And, while I love the idea of the wider sidewalks, I do have  concerns about narrowing the road just as folks are moving onto St. Johns, with its problematic curves. Any insight into how this might work?  Thanks.

Most traffic engineers will tell you that narrowing the road reduces the speed, which in turn would make the curves safer too.  The big winners are the pedestrians.  Currently there is practically no curb separating the sidewalk from the road and the sidewalk is only about 4-5' wide.

There would be plenty of room for a bike lane in the future.  I asked FDOT about this and they would only put in a bike lane when they could do a longer portion.  Typically you don't want to have a bike lane that is only one block long.

I think a road diet for that lane is a great idea.  The NB lane is way too wide in that section and I think it is confusing to motorist who are not familiar with the area.  I've seen vehicles drive as though they think the road is about to open up to 2 lanes NB.  A wider sidewalk and bike lanes would be great- there are heavy ped and bike movements in the area as we all know.

That being said- I'm with field on the roundabout.  Something has got to be done with that intersection- it is a cluster right now and is dangerous to peds and bikes.  The (mostly) free-flow NB right turn on St. Johns at the light makes it difficult for peds to cross safely.  A roundabout would help to slow traffic and eliminate some of the dedicated right and left turn lanes. 

[PeeJayEss]

I don't see how any neighbor argues with this newest proposal. Adjacent homeowner's home values will actually go up immediately without the tower visibility, traffic design load isn't increasing, river access is being improved, the place won't look like an abandoned office park, and a boardwalk along the creek. It looks like they even hid the parking deck. I'm generally for higher density, but I'm with the NIMBY's that a tall tower was a bit out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood (that and I'd take downtown, Lavilla, and Brooklyn covered in 3-story buildings rather than have a couple scattered skyscrapers). I think the only issue I can think of is the setback of the buildings from the road, but the curve presents some challenges and, if you have to choose between road-fronting and creek-fronting, I'd go with creek almost all the time (if the alternative is parking on the creek side).

[Intuition Ale Works]

I don't see how any neighbor argues with this newest proposal. Adjacent homeowner's home values will actually go up immediately without the tower visibility, traffic design load isn't increasing, river access is being improved, the place won't look like an abandoned office park, and a boardwalk along the creek. It looks like they even hid the parking deck. I'm generally for higher density, but I'm with the NIMBY's that a tall tower was a bit out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood (that and I'd take downtown, Lavilla, and Brooklyn covered in 3-story buildings rather than have a couple scattered skyscrapers). I think the only issue I can think of is the setback of the buildings from the road, but the curve presents some challenges and, if you have to choose between road-fronting and creek-fronting, I'd go with creek almost all the time (if the alternative is parking on the creek side).

You just do not get it. Any and all change to our neighborhood is bad and can not be tolerated.

[grimss]

I still believe in my heart of hearts that a roundabout is sorely needed at the Herschel/St Johns intersection.

I talked recently to a traffic engineer about whether a roundabout could work here, and he expressed concerns about pedestrian traffic to the school. Presently, traffic stops when the light turns red, giving students the chance to cross Herschel and St. Johns. With a traffic circle, the traffic, theoretically, doesn't stop unless it's compelled to yield to a car already in the circle.

If you look at San Marco's new roundabouts, there are big pedestrian crossing signs, but the pedestrian has to wait until a car bothers to notice them. Not sure how well this would work for kids going to school.

However, I do agree that the entire intersection needs rethinking.

[PeeJayEss]

I still believe in my heart of hearts that a roundabout is sorely needed at the Herschel/St Johns intersection.

I talked recently to a traffic engineer about whether a roundabout could work here, and he expressed concerns about pedestrian traffic to the school. Presently, traffic stops when the light turns red, giving students the chance to cross Herschel and St. Johns. With a traffic circle, the traffic, theoretically, doesn't stop unless it's compelled to yield to a car already in the circle.

If you look at San Marco's new roundabouts, there are big pedestrian crossing signs, but the pedestrian has to wait until a car bothers to notice them. Not sure how well this would work for kids going to school.

However, I do agree that the entire intersection needs rethinking.

Perhaps, in Jacksonville, we really do need extreme traffic calming, a la the Laura St roundabout, because you're right. People do still seem to breeze through San Marco, but they really chill in front of the Landing.

[cline]

I don't see how any neighbor argues with this newest proposal. Adjacent homeowner's home values will actually go up immediately without the tower visibility, traffic design load isn't increasing, river access is being improved, the place won't look like an abandoned office park, and a boardwalk along the creek. It looks like they even hid the parking deck. I'm generally for higher density, but I'm with the NIMBY's that a tall tower was a bit out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood (that and I'd take downtown, Lavilla, and Brooklyn covered in 3-story buildings rather than have a couple scattered skyscrapers). I think the only issue I can think of is the setback of the buildings from the road, but the curve presents some challenges and, if you have to choose between road-fronting and creek-fronting, I'd go with creek almost all the time (if the alternative is parking on the creek side).

I guess they prefer a dingy tower and an obsolete retail space to a new tower and retail space with a more vibrant waterfront.

[fieldafm]

I talked recently to a traffic engineer about whether a roundabout could work here, and he expressed concerns about pedestrian traffic to the school. Presently, traffic stops when the light turns red, giving students the chance to cross Herschel and St. Johns. With a traffic circle, the traffic, theoretically, doesn't stop unless it's compelled to yield to a car already in the circle.

If you look at San Marco's new roundabouts, there are big pedestrian crossing signs, but the pedestrian has to wait until a car bothers to notice them. Not sure how well this would work for kids going to school.

However, I do agree that the entire intersection needs rethinking

What data did the traffic engineer have that reinforced that position?  The data available for these roundabouts typically show the exact opposite.

My personal experience biking along A1A (roundabouts there at Amelia Island) and biking/walking in San Marco, Landing and Jax Beach is in line with that data.  I even went to Nocatee on Saturday and saw cars stop for pedestrians crossing through a roundabout heading to Publix.  The special lady friend actually said something about it, which tickled my fancy.  In the epi-center of an auto-centric lifestyle, motorists yielded to pedestrians there and a person that cares very little about traffic planning made a comment about how effective the roundabout seemed to be in protecting that pedstrian.

I walk or bike through this intersection nearly every day and used to walk to Fishweir when I was younger (went to summer camp there).  Pedestrian safety (particularly for school children) and cyclist safety (which is defficient now) is the exact reason why I think the roundabout is so important.

I'd welcome the opportunity to do some visual case studies at some of these local roundabouts for anyone that is skeptical with how they work.