Restoration of Central Fire Station up for DDRB review

[thelakelander]

A look at Iconic Real Estate Investments' December 10th Downtown Development Review Board presentation for conceptual approval of a project to restore the Central Fire Station.

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/restoration-of-central-fire-station-up-for-ddrb-review/

[jaxlongtimer]

Looking at the pictures I was wondering if there were any plans to strip the stucco off to the underlying brick and bring the building back to more of the look of its original construction which to me seemed to have more "character."

[acme54321]

Anything is possible but I really doubt it.  There was some extensive structural modifications done to remove replace those two arched doors with three roll ups.  I'd love to see it though.  This is at least one facade update downtown that is halfway decent and historical though.

The building next door is another story 

[Steve]

It was conceptually approved today. They're leaving the stucco. I'm
Fine with that as it's historic in its own right.

Interesting enough the biggest issue was the oak tree. They want to pull it as it's 5 feet from the water service into the building and it's causing the sidewalk to buckle. The DDRB didn't want to pull it as it's a decent shade tree.

I get the DDRB's perspective but all of their solutions would add material cost to the developer. Not really fair if you ask me.

[fsu813]

Interesting enough the biggest issue was the oak tree. They want to pull it as it's 5 feet from the water service into the building and it's causing the sidewalk to buckle. The DDRB didn't want to pull it as it's a decent shade tree.

I get the DDRB's perspective but all of their solutions would add material cost to the developer. Not really fair if you ask me.

Bravo to the DDRB for making the tree stay. Whatever it costs to fix the cracked sidewalk and the rare pipe intrusion, it adds more in value to both the property owner and Downtown in general.

[fieldafm]

Interesting enough the biggest issue was the oak tree. They want to pull it as it's 5 feet from the water service into the building and it's causing the sidewalk to buckle. The DDRB didn't want to pull it as it's a decent shade tree.

I get the DDRB's perspective but all of their solutions would add material cost to the developer. Not really fair if you ask me.

Bravo to the DDRB for making the tree stay. Whatever it costs to fix the cracked sidewalk and the rare pipe intrusion, it adds more in value to both the property owner and Downtown in general.

The tree's root system is lifting the sidewalk, lifting a portion of the building foundation and likely has or is about to compromise the adjacent water main. The proposal removes the tree and replaces it with two newer, less mature trees (a type of tree that is allowed by the landscaping guidelines) whose root systems will not pose a threat to the building nor the City's infrastructure. If the tree wasn't there in the first place, the landscaping plan would 100% meet Code. The type and location of the current tree has created a situation where a long-term unintended consequence exists that wasn't envisioned when it was planted in the 80's.... and is simply being rectified in a more holistic and long-term manner that still contributes to the shade canopy and pedestrian realm along Adams St.

Looking at the pictures I was wondering if there were any plans to strip the stucco off to the underlying brick and bring the building back to more of the look of its original construction which to me seemed to have more "character."

That would be a major and very expensive change, that is unnecessary and basically illegal.  The current facade (which also serves a water sealant function that is preserving the existing bricks) has been in place since 1944... which is 34 years older than the original brick facade that presented as the building's face from 1902-1943. Removing the facade would remove the deco columns/canopy surrounding the ground-floor doors, would remove the 2nd floor balconettes, would likely eliminate the attic windows (which were added in the 1944 renovation), would remove the current style of doors (you'd have to build an entire new frame) and probably some other things that I'm not thinking about. 

However more importantly, removing the stucco facade would directly be in violation of the local historic designation in 1993(or 4?), which specifically designates the current architectural style to be a significant contributing factor for preservation.

[Steve]

Interesting enough the biggest issue was the oak tree. They want to pull it as it's 5 feet from the water service into the building and it's causing the sidewalk to buckle. The DDRB didn't want to pull it as it's a decent shade tree.

I get the DDRB's perspective but all of their solutions would add material cost to the developer. Not really fair if you ask me.

Bravo to the DDRB for making the tree stay. Whatever it costs to fix the cracked sidewalk and the rare pipe intrusion, it adds more in value to both the property owner and Downtown in general.

Not sure I agree (and they didn't force him to keep it; they said they would discuss it at final - they didn't approve ripping it out). The building owner is proposing to redo the entire sidewalk to COJ standards (bricks/flexpave around the landscaping/new concrete). This isn't cheap and this guy doesn't want to have to redo it in a couple years).

I respect DDRB for desiring to keep it, but at the end of the day the architect clearly demonstrated they genuinely gave it thought. One of the DDRB members suggested moving the entire service entry to the building, but that would result in tearing up the original terrazzo flooring on the ground floor. They did acknowledge they would have to replace the water service pipe (so they'll have to dig a trench halfway across Adams Street) but the plan was to replace at the exact same spot. The DDRB member seemed to want them to consider still moving the pipe at the street and "jogging" it under the sidewalk to meet up with the original service entry (my words, not his). I suppose you COULD do that, but it still doesn't fix the other issues like the sidewalk coming up, and to me, potentially threatening the building foundation. This isn't a highrise with a 2 story deep foundation here.