St. Johns Village Project Poised To Move Forward?

[Metro Jacksonville]

St. Johns Village Project Poised To Move Forward?



The City's Council's Land Use & Zoning Committee meeting this evening may be the last day for the public to comment on the proposed St. Johns Village redevelopment project in Riverside/Avondale. If all goes well for the mixed-use project's development team, final Council approval could be granted early next week.



Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-jan-st-johns-village-project-poised-to-move-forward

[Noone]

Thanks for the presentation. Imagine just one teeny tiny presentation like this at the Super Duper Secret FIND subcommittee meeting of the Jacksonville Waterways Commission that will be meeting at 9:30 am on 1/14/14 on the 4Th floor in Room A.

What is the Public Access component of this project if any? And is the initial dredging in or out?

[JeffreyS]

Will the developer still be contributing to the dredging of the creek?

[BoldBoyOfTheSouth]

At least that horrid looking highrise will fall to the dustheap of history.

[grimss]

Noone, in terms of public access, the developer plans to build a boardwalk along the creeks that will be accessible from Herschel. It will be open to the public during certain defined hours. There also are plans for a public kayak launch, although it's not clear whether there will be dedicated public parking for that launch.  The plan to build 18 boat slips has been dropped from the PUD.

Jeffrey S., in terms of dredging the creek, both the Planning Deparment and Planning Commission recommended that the developer be required to put $800,000 into a reserve account to help fund the city's $ match for the proposed Big Fishweir Creek Restoration Project, which is still winding its way through Congress. The developer's lawyer contested this condition before PC, and will no doubt do the same before LUZ. I believe that new ordinances passed since 2006 (last PUD) make it easier for the developer to dispute that cost, as he did nothing to contribute to the creeks' silted conditions.

The latest plans call for a modification of the site plan shown here. New unit count is supposed to be 250, with 16 units moved from the Commander parcel to the Village parcel. These "lofts" will be built on top of the commercial component, so Building 200 will now be three stories.

[Intuition Ale Works]

What is the logic behind requiring the development to dredge the creek?

Sounds like a shakedown to me.

[Noone]

On TV right now.

[icarus]

Sounds like a shakedown to me.

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck ...

[tufsu1]

What is the logic behind requiring the development to dredge the creek?

Sounds like a shakedown to me.

Not sure I agree.  The development doesn't meet existing rules, and needs a zoning change.  This could simply be a condition of approval.  As long as it can be rationally tied to the impacts of the development, it would be completely justifiable.

[mtraininjax]

City was supposed to dredge the creek with plans years ago.

[fieldafm]

As long as it can be rationally tied to the impacts of the development, it would be completely justifiable.

What would this development do to the silting of the creek thats been going on for the greater of the past three decades?  It could be argued that replacing the surface lots that front the river woud actually decrease polluted runoff into the creek and that a public kayak launch offers a unique public benefit.  The closest public access for hand launched vessels is Stinson Park. There is no way to publicly access Fishweir now.

I don't have a problem with density bonuses or incentive zoning (in fact, Code shoud encourage them), but making the developer dredge the creek just isn't the same thing. 

[icarus]

Not sure I agree.  The development doesn't meet existing rules, and needs a zoning change.  This could simply be a condition of approval.  As long as it can be rationally tied to the impacts of the development, it would be completely justifiable.

Oh, kind of like a mobility fee, right?   ;-)

[thelakelander]

There's a rational nexus between a development's trip generation and a mobility fee.  I'm not sure there's one for dredging the creek.

[dougskiles]

Approved by LUZ 7-0.  Dredging was never really discussed because the boat slips were dropped.  Without the boat slips, the council members must have felt there was no rational connection to that request.  The developer did agree to construct a multi-use path on his side of the right-of-way (basically a wider sidewalk).

[grimss]

Doug, I think you would agree, it was a refreshingly civil and productive hearing.

No one was thrilled with 250 units, but all the neighborhood groups were willing to compromise in order to get a good PUD, and Balanky was flexible about agreeing to additional conditions that helped the community feel good about the project.