Fleet Landing Riverside seeks DDRB conceptual approval

[thelakelander]

^ I'd be interested to know how many developers come to the table with half baked conceptual designs? From the presentations of Baptist's hotel and this, they were on either side of the spectrum. One funded and ready to go with minor adjustments while the other, well not so much.

Most come to the DDRB at the level or close to the level of the Baptist project. The Fleet project was a first during my time on the DDRB at that early conceptual level. Being in my professional field of work, I feel I have a pretty good idea of how much time it took to put that concept together, how far they have to go and how likely that there are several issues that will alter the concept to the point that when they come back at final, it will be a challenge and waste of volunteer time (I could literally care less what type of tree goes up in the parking lot or what type of fence material surrounds the dumpster) to review and recommend any changes (the actual building layout and how its spaces can best interact and engage the pedestrian at street level) that may be viewed as too significant.

I'd like to remain optimistic about their final product. They've been primarily in Jax for many years and have great communities. I don't think this would be any exception This is a little different what they've done in the past, but I think they'll get it right when it's all said and done. Would be nice if they do touch base halfway through just for a quick glance over but that time will come. They're very early in the process and have to do things differently unfortunately. Now if this was done Joe Schmo then I'd think twice about it, but let's give them a chance and see how things pan out.

I've been around long enough to know words, wishes and hope don't equate to much when it comes to good urban design. Policy, zoning regulations, ordinances, etc. can either make or break you from achieving a vision. Hope and wishing have turned Riverside Avenue and Forest Street in Brooklyn into an autocentric district despite the amount of infill projects that have clustered there since 2015. With guidance, direction and good policy, Brooklyn looks and feels completely different than it does today. When its the wild west, you end up with a Vista Brooklyn style project being immediately located next door to a strip mall with a big surface parking lot between Fresh Market and the street. Even that center looks a lot different if we didn't fight and rally to get the restaurant outparcels shifted to closer to Riverside Avenue than the original layout. Same goes for a number of other infill projects built over the past 15 years like the VyStar Garage, Gate gas at Forest & Park, the JTA U2C Operations building on Jefferson. Anyway, I do believe the ultimate fix is a comprehensive update of zoning, design guidelines, etc. in some parts of downtown to make things more predictable, understandable, efficient, timesaving, affordable, etc. for all involved (COJ, the community, the developer), while also facilitating individual development projects working together to get us closer to a corresponding community vision for downtown.

 

Not related, but the disposition has ended for the old courthouse site. Interested to see what has came out of that. As well as in curious to know what's up with the permits on getting the Related Jax going. Probably won't see cranes until fall at this rate. Lastly, not reading too much into it, but kinda am - MOSH. They requested another extension and it was approved. Is it ever going to happen? And they have a substantially completion date set for 1 Aug 2029 rather than 30 Jan 2029. Are we gearing up to throw our hat in the ring to host the 2030 NFL draft? Or do they want it up and running prior to the season beginning? Latest on Gateway proposal for Riverfront Plaza? My guess is an Edition with additional floors - key rooms 40/60% residential.

Time will tell. Its not always easy to get through permitting, which is where I think the Related Jax project is at. Even the LaVilla Heritage Trail project I worked on is still tied up in permitting hell. That installation date keeps getting pushed back. We're hoping to reach the finish line with that one later next month or early May.

Kinda upset the Lion Group fell through that looked beautiful. But everything happens for a reason.

This particular project was always a pipe dream. Part of me hates that conceptual renderings hit the media so quick. Most of these high level concepts will never make it to the final stage and the ones that do will most likely not look exactly like the original rendering. So to a degree, premature news only leads to great disappointment when the ones like Lions expectedly fizzle out because their proformas don't work.

[MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain]

Fleet Landing seeks incentives for downtown tower on old Haskell site

Fleet Landing's residential tower on the former site of Haskell's headquarters in downtown will move forward to a vote by the Downtown Investment Authority board on $49 million in incentives.

The proposed 31-story tower would be the tallest in the Brooklyn neighborhood and bring hundreds of residents to an area that has been the hottest spot for development in downtown.

The Downtown Investment Authority Board will vote Oct. 21 on an incentive package that spreads 20 years of property tax rebates totaling up to $49.3 million over that span.

The incentive package would not include a cash completion grant. Those cash grants have met resistance from some City Council members who have said they prefer funding incentives through the REV grants that feature rebates of a portion of new property taxes generated by development.

This is exactly how future development should request incentives going forward. Love to see this!

[Ken_FSU]

Fleet Landing seeks incentives for downtown tower on old Haskell site

Fleet Landing's residential tower on the former site of Haskell's headquarters in downtown will move forward to a vote by the Downtown Investment Authority board on $49 million in incentives.

The proposed 31-story tower would be the tallest in the Brooklyn neighborhood and bring hundreds of residents to an area that has been the hottest spot for development in downtown.

The Downtown Investment Authority Board will vote Oct. 21 on an incentive package that spreads 20 years of property tax rebates totaling up to $49.3 million over that span.

The incentive package would not include a cash completion grant. Those cash grants have met resistance from some City Council members who have said they prefer funding incentives through the REV grants that feature rebates of a portion of new property taxes generated by development.

This is exactly how future development should request incentives going forward. Love to see this!

Agreed. But I'd still vote no on a $50 million tax rebate. The Haskell properly is the most desirable piece of land in the most desirable urban neighborhood in Jacksonville. This isn't a residential tower in the traditional sense. It's ultra-luxury retirement + assisted living, with units averaging $1.32 million each. It's a garish tower out-of-proportion with the surroundings, and I'd argue that a largely self-contained retirement facility doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood we're trying to build in Brooklyn. Good for Fleeting Landing if they want to build it. Zero universe where the city should be giving them a $50 million tax break to do so unless it fits into a predefined strategic master plan for the area. Let them pay for it themselves. Or consider a much smaller REV grant.

[Ken_FSU]

More details of the REV grant from the Daily Record:

The incentives would come in a 20-year, 75% Recapture Enhanced Value Grant, according incentive Resolution 2026-10-02. A REV grant is a refund on ad valorem tax revenue generated by a new development or property enhancement. It can apply to property and tangible personal property.

Didn't the DIA cap Brooklyn REV grants at 50%?

Whole project just feels pedestrian-hostile, with the detached garage, narrow setback, and bare minimum of token public activation to qualify incentives.

[fsu813]

More details of the REV grant from the Daily Record:

The incentives would come in a 20-year, 75% Recapture Enhanced Value Grant, according incentive Resolution 2026-10-02. A REV grant is a refund on ad valorem tax revenue generated by a new development or property enhancement. It can apply to property and tangible personal property.

Didn't the DIA cap Brooklyn REV grants at 50%?

Whole project just feels pedestrian-hostile, with the detached garage, narrow setback, and bare minimum of token public activation to qualify incentives.

If you talk to the architect, they'll tell you they have many constraints, and thus this is the result.

[Ken_FSU]

More details of the REV grant from the Daily Record:

The incentives would come in a 20-year, 75% Recapture Enhanced Value Grant, according incentive Resolution 2026-10-02. A REV grant is a refund on ad valorem tax revenue generated by a new development or property enhancement. It can apply to property and tangible personal property.

Didn't the DIA cap Brooklyn REV grants at 50%?

Whole project just feels pedestrian-hostile, with the detached garage, narrow setback, and bare minimum of token public activation to qualify incentives.

If you talk to the architect, they'll tell you they have many constraints, and thus this is the result.

If that's the case, I'd argue that maybe a monolithic 31-story highrise doesn't belong on that piece of land. Not my decision. I don't even dislike the project. I just think we need to have some kind of standards for REV grants instead of handing them out like candy with no rhyme or reason. To me, it needs to either 1) fit a predefined strategic need for that parcel, 2) go above and beyond in terms of contributing to a better pedestrian experience, 3) bring a blighted building back to life, or 4) have some element of equity or inclusion in terms of workforce housing.

A great master plan appeals to a wide variety of classes. Between Four Seasons, the Related tower on the Southbank, this project, and the proposed condos at Riverfront Plaza, we're sinking hundreds of millions of dollars and our future tax base exclusively into housing that 95% of the city could never afford. 

There's value to that, don't get me wrong, but we're going to be in a bad place as a city in 15 years if we're freely handing over 75% tax abatements for two decades to a project that should be able to sell itself (in advance of construction) to multimillionaires who can afford to pay market rate for their luxury retirement home.

[jaxlongtimer]

I note in the Daily Record that Ennis was the lone vote against this project at DDRB.  Based on some of the above comments, I think I get his thinking.  Maybe Ennis would like to elaborate here?

[Charles Hunter]

They say there are no dumb (with a "b") questions, so here goes:
When a condo project gets a 50% REV grant for 10 years - does that apply to just the 'common' property, or does each purchaser of a condo in the tower has half of their property tax valuation waived? In other words, if I buy a condo for $1 million in a REV-grant tower, do I pay taxes on the million (less homestead exemption), or on one-half million (less HE)?

And, I agree with Ken-fsu that incentives should be related to how well the project meets the adopted master plan (and that we actually have a master plan).

[jcjohnpaint]

This one was approved by DDRB. I was the lone no vote. Not because I'm against the project because I also hope it gets built. I voted against the precedent that was set where an applicant can walk in, and get conceptual approval with a high level paper napkin sketch and not have to come back to the DDRB until they're ready for final approval.

They could flip the garage and the high rise and that might solve the height and setback issue, but would that be better, having the garage on the river side?

Another option is having a parking podium style tower, thus making the tower significantly taller but maybe putting it up at Riverside.  I've been told this makes the project *significantly* more expensive and thus infeasible.

All valid possibilities but none of this will happen since the site layout was basically approved as is. I did ask the question of what was the decision to go FIS-style with a separate garage and tower, as that leads to some constraints with ground floor retail spacing and pushes the closer to the river. I knew the answer was financial feasibility, but I wanted the applicant to say it on record. I may be in the minority with this opinion, but incentives should be considered for projects that go above and beyond the minimum (i.e. better urban site design, that may lead to higher costs). Anyway, I wish the project the best and hope they do what they said they would, but did not want to be required to do.