Chase Properties owner Michael Balanky has a rezoning proposal submitted to the City to move the Commander Apartments and the adjacent shopping center from CCG to PUD. Chase is the current owner of the property.
He wants to tear down the Commander Apartments and the shopping center which have about 150,000 sq ft of floor space and replace it with a single, mixed-use building with 600,000 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant and high density residential space.
http://maps.coj.net/luzap/SearchLandUsePublic.aspx
Click on "Search Land Use" tab on the side and insert PUD number 2013C-010 to see the status and meeting notices.
The PUD designation is necessary as this is in the Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay area.
I have a PDF of the full application and can PM it to anyone interested as I do not know how to post a PDF file or a link to one in the forum. Advice on how to do this would be greatly appreciated.
Commander needs to go. Great news if it pans out.
Speaking as a home owner on St Johns Avenue two blocks from this planned development, I do not welcome such a massive structure on this two lane residential street; yes, it's commercial directly in front of the development, but immediately north it becomes residential.
I'd like to see the DOT traffic count on St Johns and see an estimate of the expected increase in traffic. With a 5 story parking garage, double the current commercial space, and more than double the number of apartments, I think it's reasonable to expect that it's going to have a significant traffic impact.
Here's an excerpt from the message alerting me to the project:
QuoteThe public Preview Workshop for the proposed land use amendment for the shopping center will be held downtown on Monday, April 29, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. at the Ed Ball Building at 214 North Hogan Street. The Preview Workshop is hosted by the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department. Please attend, if possible. You may ask the applicant questions about the proposed land use amendment and the companion zoning application.
THE COMPANION ZONING APPLICATION REQUESTS A NEW PUD FOR THE PROPERTY (BOTH THE SHOPPING CENTER AND THE COMMANDER APARTMENTS). UNDER THE NEW PUD, THE SITE WOULD BE RAISED - KA BOOM (DEMOLISHING ALL OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURES) - TO START FROM SCRATCH TO BUILD A NEW HUGE DEVELOPMENT!
The current square footage of the Commander Apartments and the shopping center combined is about 150,000 square feet. The total square footage of the proposed development will be nearly 600,000 square feet! The proposed development will be a mixed use project with HDR ("high density residential") zoning, which will integrate office/professional/commercial space into 25% of the total square footage.
Quote from: ben says on April 27, 2013, 02:56:49 PM
Commander needs to go. Great news if it pans out.
Its way too intense for that area.
How does this compare in size/scale with the two mixed use developments going into Brooklyn? They have a 4 lane road on one side and a 6 lane road on the other.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 27, 2013, 02:33:53 PM
I have a PDF of the full application and can PM it to anyone interested as I do not know how to post a PDF file or a link to one in the forum. Advice on how to do this would be greatly appreciated.
Here you go:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Commander-Project/i-KLpZDZk/0/X2/PUD%20Application004-X2.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Commander-Project/i-nLbJZ3Q/0/L/PUD%20Application005-L.jpg)
Looking at the map. Who knows what the PUD designation in the creek is for? Will the development extend over the creek or will there be a marina or docks?
^Those maps are the existing land use categories and zoning districts. According the graphic, a new PUD is proposed to replace the existing PUD zoning districts on the site.
Thanks for the help, Ennis!
The proposed development for the Commander Apartments and shopping center combined is being referred to as the "St. Johns Village Center". The land is outside the Riverside/Avondale historic district, but is inside the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay. Here's a link to the Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay:
http://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level4/ZOSE_CH656ZOCO_PT3SCDIRE_SPORIAVZOOV.html#TOPTITLE
The Preview Workshop on April 29th concerns the proposed land use amendment regarding the shopping center portion of the property, application number 2013C-010. The current zoning for the the shopping center is "CGC" (Community/General Commercial) and the applicant seeks to change it to "HDR" (High Density Residential). Under the HDR zoning, I believe you can build up to 60 units per acre and may develop a mixed use project, provided that the non-residential uses of the property are integrated into the residential uses. The adjacent Commander Apartments is currently zoned "HDR". You may contact Kristen Reed at the City Planning Department at (904) 255-7837 for more information.
The "Companion Zoning Application" that goes with the application for the proposed land use amendment for the shopping center is a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") that concerns both the Commander Apartments and the shopping center. The proposed PUD has not received a PUD number, nor has it been filed on-line yet with the City because the application has not yet been completed to the City's satisfaction. (Per a City Planner, it is likely the PUD application will be completed in the next couple of weeks.) The tracking number for the Companion Zoning Application is 353. You may contact Andy Hetzel at the City Planning Department at (904) 255-7821 for more information. (The PUD proposed for the redevelopment of this property in 2005 was 2005-1330-E, which was passed by City Council, prior to the enactment of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay.)
Per my conversation with a City Planner last week, in the new PUD, the applicant seeks to build a mixed use development with 25% of the total square footage to consist of office/professional/commercial uses. Since the proposed development consists of nearly 600,000 square feet, that means about 150,000 square feet of the proposed development would be for office/professional/commercial uses, as compared to the less than 44,000 square feet of the current shopping center - ack. (Keep in mind, too, the current shopping center appears to be underutilized and may even have vacancies in this floundering economy, so it's likely not even a true reflection of traffic or activity of a new center of its current size.) In fact under the new PUD, the square footage for just the new office/professional/commercial uses are more than current combined square footage of the Commander Apartments and the old shopping center!
And, if the proposed development at St. Johns Village Center has a dock or boat launch, that will need to be thoroughly addressed, too, as there is an Army Corps. of Engineer dredging project, to restore a healthy aquatic habitat for Fishweir Creek. It's called the "Big Fishweir Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project".
As the saga with the proposed land use amendment and Companion Zoning Application for St. Johns Village Center unfolds, please do not get sucked into the "they wanted more, but they compromised, so it's OK" mentality. Please review what the developer asks for in the proposal for redevelopment and ask whether it is suitable use for the property. Period. If they ask for a 10 and eventually get a 6, when the property should only support a 3, then it's not OK!
And, in response to an earlier post, this is what I can find tonight about the proposed developments in the Brooklyn area, off of Riverside Avenue: 1) the Pope & Land Enterprises, Inc., Project has about 300 apartments (of unknown square footage), with an additional 65,000 feet of retail space, on an 11 acre site (where the apartments face Park Street and the commercial area faces Riverside Avenue, and which is also bounded by Jackson Street and Leila Street), and 2) the 220 Riverside Project has a seven story building with 294 apartments (estimated at just over 250,000 square feet total), with an additional 18,000 square feet of retail space, and a parking garage. The apartment developer withdrew from the Pope & Land project in March 2013 and I do not know whether a replacement has been found yet.
A replacement developer for the residential portion of the Pope & Land project has been found. That project is anticipated to be under construction by the end of this summer.
QuoteIf they ask for a 10 and eventually get a 6, when the property should only support a 3, then it's not OK!
What happens if they ask for a 10 and we find out that the property can support a 15? How many units will this proposed development have? Are they 1, 2 or 3, etc. bedrooms? That's probably more important for determining what the property can support than square footage. Also, is it safe to assume the overall square footage number includes off-street parking for residential and commercial uses?
If they build 600,000 sq ft of finished space then HUGE is an appropraite word. Consider the old Barnett Bank Building in dowtown, the one that recently sold to the group financed by Shad Khan, is less than 200,000 sq ft.
So would this be the equivalent of 3 of those buildings on that site? WOW.
I wonder where the idea of 600,000 sq ft of finished space came from? Is there a site plan available?
Until we see a proposed site plan there shouldn't be any Suport, opposition or zoning sides taken.
^That's pretty much my position at this point. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Can anyone elaborate on the condition of the Commander Apts? That high rise has only been there since 1961; I'm sorry at that age the 'out of place comments' like it's some johnny come lately goes outta the window IMO. Just because it's tall and may need a renovation it should be removed, I don't understand that logic. If it was located DT, most of yall would be raising hell hearing news about a potential high rise demo.
What is the Waterways component if any? Very interesting observations about dock permitting at the last Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting. Anybody want to write a check for a buck to 2009-442 the Artificial Reef Trust Fund? It's a Trust fund.
Sounds a bit premature to have an opinion on a development that hasn't even completed a site plan, nonetheless a PUD application yet.
Knowing about development though, I'm curious about this 150,000 sq ft retail number being thrown around. My educated guess based on general knowledge in the commercial and residential real estate field and familiarity with the site (I am a former resident of the Commander) would put the retail number around maybe a third of that or less. It would also seem highly likely that a development with those characteristics would include structured parking (IE parking garage). This would eliminate the large swaths of surface parking along the waterfront (especially behind the existing Commander building), which would be better for Fishweir Creek. And seeing as though Balanky is involved, I'd also be willing to guess that runoff from the site would also be reduced from some kind of natural effluent method. Looking at the kinds of projects getting favorable financing... I'd also be willing to guess that any retail portion would front the street(making the development more walkable), not be hidden by poorly maintained surface parking.
I'd also be curious to take a look at the final application to see how many auto trips are being calculated. Knowing the site's history... It has always had an 'intensive' use. At one point, there was a Winn Dixie there.
Will be interested to see the actual site plan.
A Walmart Supercenter is around 150,000 square feet.
(http://abcnewspapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/andv-walmart.jpg)
It's hard to imagine that much retail going on that site....even if it were vertical. The traffic count and visibility on St. Johns Avenue doesn't justify that type of retail investment in the area. I assume, once a conceptual plan is actually created, this will end up much smaller than feared by some of our posters. In the meantime, for those worried about this rezoning, how much residential and retail would you find acceptable?
The Bank of America tower is a little over 600,000 sq ft.
Part of this seems to go into the center of Fishweir Creek. Interested to see if there is a marina component as part of the plan.
I hope the 600,000 figure is wrong! Even though the site is bigger than the site of the Bank of America Tower so it wouldn't have to be as tall, that's still a BIG building.
The engineering for a building that big on what is fill soil is going to be very challenging.
The development that was proposed for this site during the boom was pretty massive, but overall looked pretty positive for the area. That site is outdated and needs something done to bring it up to date
Even without the release of the new PUD yet, the stakes are already high on the development of the St. Johns Village Center. Please keep in mind that a developer may use the current PUD, which is number 2005-1330-E to develop the property. The 2005 PUD was put in place before the enactment of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay.
You may download a copy of the 2005 PUD here, using the "archived PUDs" tab:
http://maps.coj.net/luzap/ArchiveZo.aspx
Here are a few "cut and pastes" from the current PUD, which is PUD 2005-1330-E:
Whereas...
(g) The tower structure shall contain no more than 100
residential units. The reduction to 100 units reflects a reduction
of the mass of the tower by 25 units (average 1,700 square feet per
unit) from the previously proposed 125-unit plan.
II. Summary of the Plan -
The maximum permitted uses within the PUD shall be: 166 residential units and 20,000
enclosed square feet of retail commercial uses. Of the 166 residential units, 100 will be located
on the 2.56-acre Commander parcel (which has a residential land use classification of HDR) and
the remaining 66 will be located on the 3.3-acre St. Johns Village parcel (which has a
commercial land use classification of CGC).
III. Description of Permitted Uses
(B) (5) - Multi-family residential -
Maximum height of structures. The existing Commander Tower (which is 17-
stories tall) will be replaced with a new condominium high-rise (the tallest portion
of which--located on the southwest portion of the Commander parcel--will be 17-
stories tall [approximately 185 feet in height above grade around the building
footprint]). The waterfront "wing" of the building (facing South) will step down
in height to 15 stories [approximately 165 feet in height] and then to 13 stories
[approximately 145 feet in height]. The waterfront wing of the building will also
include a series of 4-story townhomes [approximately 60 feet in height] in front of
the towers, thereby offsetting the height and scale of the taller buildings. The 4-
story townhomes will also be located along the eastern edge of the parcel, along
the waterfront, as well as along the western "wing" of the building. The western
wing of the building will step down in height to 14 stories [approximately 155
feet in height], then to 11 stories [approximately 125 feet in height], then to 9
stories (approximately 105 feet in height) and then to 3 stories (approximately 45
feet in height).
The remaining structures (on the St. Johns Village parcel) will "step down" in
height toward Herschel Street (five stories and four stories, respectively). A
detailed depiction of the respective heights of the proposed buildings is set forth
in the "Building Height Exhibit" attached hereto as Exhibit "E-3." Any variance
in height by more than 8 feet from that depicted in Exhibit E-3 shall require an
Administrative Modification to the approved PUD. Any variance in height by
more than 20 feet shall require a Minor Modification to the approved PUD.
(D)(2) Overall PUD Design Criteria -
Maximum lot coverage by all buildings. The maximum parcel coverage by all
buildings shall be eighty-five percent (85%).
IV PUD Review Criteria -
(D) Allocation of Residential Land Use. The HDR land use permits residential
development at a density of up to sixty (60) units per gross acre. The proposed
PUD permits up to 20 dwelling units per acre on the portion of the site designated
with a CGC land use classification, and up to 39 units per acre on the portion of
site with the HDR land use classification. Both of these densities are within the
permitted residential allocations provided in the Comprehensive Plan.
The 2005 PUD shown above also required the developer to conduct a traffic study and deposit $800,000 for the dredging of Fishweir Creek.
The 2005 PUD was never considered for verification. (I.e., before a developer receives building permits under a PUD, there must be verification for substantial compliance with the PUD.) The exhibits for the 2005 PUD may be obtained from the Office of Legislative Services at 630-1414, as they do not appear to have been filed for on-line review with the PUD archives.
I think it is wise to be concerned sooner rather than later as this new PUD moves through the City's administrative process; the stakes are very high.
I thought the site plan from the 2005 application was pretty decent. That one had a few different buildings though, sounds like this one is only going to have one. I'll withhold judgement until I see the new site plan. I think it would be great if they're still required to contribute to the dredging of Fishweir.
QuoteI think it is wise to be concerned sooner rather than later as this new PUD moves through the City's administrative process; the stakes are very high.
As long as the word 'concerned' doesn't mean 'opposition', then I completely agree. Saying the 'stakes are high' and 'If they ask for a 10 and eventually get a 6, when the property should only support a 3, then it's not OK!' is nothing but unproductive hyperbole. Rushing to conclusions and quoting square feet is premature. I've found that after 11 years in the industry that one should be honest and stick to the facts.
If someone in Planning is quoting numbers for public consumption when neither a site plan nor complete PUD application has been submitted, then that is a REALLY bad thing... like you should probably lose your job kind of bad thing. If that is indeed happening, then perhaps an internal investigation is warranted. Conjecture only leads to people jumping to misinformed conclusions and is quite frankly not fair to any party involved. That's simply hysteria and the neighborhood will never move forward in a positive direction based on people whipping up hysteria.
Seeing as though I am a neighbor to this development, I will be glad to reach a conclusion once the pen actually hits the paper.
Way too much for that site. I'm sure if the proposal ends up being half that size, it will still be phased. A lender has to look at sponsorship here, and do its own due diligence, so I wouldn't be too worried that some huge calamity is going to be coming to that site any time soon. I'd be happy with a complete makeover of what's already on the site, and no structured parking - doesn't fit the area.
One also doesn't have to look much further than the Shoppes, Riverside, Hershel, or any commercial area in town to realize that retail, especially high end retail does not do well on the westside. Restaurants are doing well, and office space for professional uses could probably do well (will local practices pay new construction rents, though?).
Overall the area does need a cleanup. The original proposal called for city help in putting a roundabout at the intersection there and cleaning up the sidewalks and landscaping, which is really much of what the area needs to make it more attractive to residents and businesses and appear less grimy.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2013, 09:48:13 PM
A replacement developer for the residential portion of the Pope & Land project has been found. That project is anticipated to be under construction by the end of this summer.
seems they've already trucked in a bunch of dirt to raise the site up and level it...unless it's to fill back in after ash removal
Quote from: fieldafm on April 29, 2013, 11:35:10 AM
QuoteI think it is wise to be concerned sooner rather than later as this new PUD moves through the City's administrative process; the stakes are very high.
As long as the word 'concerned' doesn't mean 'opposition', then I completely agree. Saying the 'stakes are high' and 'If they ask for a 10 and eventually get a 6, when the property should only support a 3, then it's not OK!' is nothing but unproductive hyperbole. Rushing to conclusions and quoting square feet is premature. I've found that after 11 years in the industry that one should be honest and stick to the facts.
If someone in Planning is quoting numbers for public consumption when neither a site plan nor complete PUD application has been submitted, then that is a REALLY bad thing... like you should probably lose your job kind of bad thing. If that is indeed happening, then perhaps an internal investigation is warranted. Conjecture only leads to people jumping to misinformed conclusions and is quite frankly not fair to any party involved. That's simply hysteria and the neighborhood will never move forward in a positive direction based on people whipping up hysteria.
Seeing as though I am a neighbor to this development, I will be glad to reach a conclusion once the pen actually hits the paper.
There is obviously someone in the COJ planning apartment with an agenda and a big mouth.
Our city deserves better.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on April 29, 2013, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on April 29, 2013, 11:35:10 AM
QuoteI think it is wise to be concerned sooner rather than later as this new PUD moves through the City's administrative process; the stakes are very high.
As long as the word 'concerned' doesn't mean 'opposition', then I completely agree. Saying the 'stakes are high' and 'If they ask for a 10 and eventually get a 6, when the property should only support a 3, then it's not OK!' is nothing but unproductive hyperbole. Rushing to conclusions and quoting square feet is premature. I've found that after 11 years in the industry that one should be honest and stick to the facts.
If someone in Planning is quoting numbers for public consumption when neither a site plan nor complete PUD application has been submitted, then that is a REALLY bad thing... like you should probably lose your job kind of bad thing. If that is indeed happening, then perhaps an internal investigation is warranted. Conjecture only leads to people jumping to misinformed conclusions and is quite frankly not fair to any party involved. That's simply hysteria and the neighborhood will never move forward in a positive direction based on people whipping up hysteria.
Seeing as though I am a neighbor to this development, I will be glad to reach a conclusion once the pen actually hits the paper.
There is obviously someone in the COJ planning apartment with an agenda and a big mouth.
Our city deserves better.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvjp2adVod1r6hpw6o1_400.gif)
There was a brief article in today's Jax Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/04/29/luxury-apartment-retail-development.html
Not much more information.
BTW, any information submitted to a City department is public information which any City employee must divulge at request.
The meeting this afternoon will answer the questions about size and mixture or uses.
I think this thread is gonna be awesome! :o
QuoteBTW, any information submitted to a City department is public information which any City employee must divulge at request.
There is a HUGE difference b/w someone submitting a zoning application, which
is in fact public record... and someone in Planning spreading false information and passing on innuendo. There is a
BIG ethical difference in those situations.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 29, 2013, 02:00:02 PM
There was a brief article in today's Jax Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/04/29/luxury-apartment-retail-development.html
Not much more information.
BTW, any information submitted to a City department is public information which any City employee must divulge at request.
The meeting this afternoon will answer the questions about size and mixture or uses.
Where did the 600,000 square foot number come from?
Evidently there are four or five different iterations of the PUD in the works and that figure came from one of them. It was mentioned as a possible top figure.
All working documents in city departments are public documents and the planning department people are very careful NOT to repeat things said in discussions or idea floating sessions. Ask the Business Journal reporter about that. But if it is on paper or in emails or recordings it is public.
Everybody stay cool until the facts are completely available. All this is second and third hand to me too so let's not go all CNN.
Quoteand the planning department people are very careful NOT to repeat things said in discussions or idea floating sessions
That has not been the case lately and that is a BIG problem.
The 2005 PUD application has a 17 story condo core surrounded by stepped down sections to 11 stories surrounded by 9 story section. The shoreline shows four story townhouse condos lining it. Plan also shows marina with four story condo complex behind it.
It's big and dense but it would not be a Soviet style apartment block. Multiple buildings, multiple levels and roof lines. Love to see an elevation.
Here's a rendering of the 2005 proposal I found in our archives of dead projects:
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6826-st_johns_village.jpg)
This definitely feels like someone's trying to poison the well. Unfortunately it starts everyone off on tangents like "it's too big" before we know anything about the size, let alone the configuration.
Some of this speculation is really reaching. There's already retail, and there's already residential, what would the impact be if they were at the current capacity? Or at the actually highest capacity they're zoned for if the sites weren't mostly empty parking lots on the waterfront? It's hard to imagine that the current state of affairs should be the desired status quo.
And comparing this to the Riverside Avenue developments and their impact on the street is pretty off. Sure, Riverside Ave is much wider than St. Johns Ave, but it serves a ton more people than those who live (or will live) there, and more than St. Johns. There's no need to jump to the most negative conclusions before we even know what's planned for this site.
Well, now we know what is planned for the site. 350 apartment units. 42,000 sq. ft. retail, same as now. Five story parking garage right up against St. John's Ave. These are proposed maximums. When it was condos in the 2005PUD there were going to be 160 units. Commander apartments are currently 99 units.
Lawyer for developer says that aim not to increase traffic on St. John's or reduce it from current level.....and they are going to raise unicorns on the property to carry people over the river, I guess.
Marina plans have vanished as you would expect when moving from condos to apartments.
600,000 sq ft. figure is if you include the square footage of the parking garage. It is just over 400,000 for retail and apartments assuming that the apartments would average out at 1000 sq.ft. each.
Johnathon Oliff, representing RAP, also expressed concern about possible maximum size said that they are willing to work with the developer, but that the organization had to oppose the re-zoning request until the final plans were more developed.
Several speakers expressed concerns about the increase in traffic and that the size of the development is out of scale for the neighborhood.
One speaker brought up a new concern. Fishweir Elementary School is directly across the street and the children of the apartment renters would have to go there and it is already at capacity.
Robin Lumb, Jim Love and Lori Boyer were all in attendance. Jim Love said he was sure that the neighborhood and the developer could work out a mutually agreeable arrangement.
Looks like everyone has staked out beginning negotiation positions. Everybody was very polite at this stage. Stay tuned!
^Thanks for the update, Dog Walker!
I think we should interject ourselves right here to try and facilitate good public access to the river along this new development.
Dog Walker, did the plan they presented look anything like the drawing from 2005 Ennis found? I am thinking that everyone thought it was an ordeal getting Mellow Mushroom into the shops of Avondale. I think we are fixing to see some real drama over this. Right now river access is basically access to a muddy sandbar. I have heard there is some research looking into this reality and decisions being made about dredging or allowing it to remain shallow. I don't think Avondale or Ortega will go for the height, the lost Marina or the parking lot abutting St. Johns. This is going to be interesting to watch. ;)
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 29, 2013, 05:31:41 PMSeveral speakers expressed concerns about the increase in traffic and that the size of the development is out of scale for the neighborhood.
One speaker brought up a new concern. Fishweir Elementary School is directly across the street and the children of the apartment renters would have to go there and it is already at capacity.
It's not out of the ordinary to want to see more development details before approving a PUD rezoning. I have a few questions and comments:
1. Was a scale for the development defined? Just wondering if out-of-scale comments are based on something factual, such as proposed building heights, setbacks, architectural details, density compared with rest of area's multifamily properties, etc.
2. Is there any idea of what the average household size/age is for the demographic this project will be marketed too? Whatever that will be will provide a better idea of the impact on schools in the area.
3. In terms of traffic, final development density and scale aside, it seems like this would be a great opportunity to address the intersection of Herschel and St. Johns in a context sensitive manner. If done right, that should result in a safety enhancement for the community.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 29, 2013, 05:47:29 PM
Dog Walker, did the plan they presented look anything like the drawing from 2005 Ennis found? I am thinking that everyone thought it was an ordeal getting Mellow Mushroom into the shops of Avondale. I think we are fixing to see some real drama over this. Right now river access is basically access to a muddy sandbar. I have heard there is some research looking into this reality and decisions being made about dredging or allowing it to remain shallow. I don't think Avondale or Ortega will go for the height, the lost Marina or the parking lot abutting St. Johns. This is going to be interesting to watch. ;)
Considering the fireworks over a little pizza restaurant I can see this possibly becoming a heated issue in upcoming months as various sides start marking their positions. It will be interesting to see what the project evolves into.
Quote from: JeffreyS on April 29, 2013, 05:43:02 PM
I think we should interject ourselves right here to try and facilitate good public access to the river along this new development.
This does sound like a great opportunity to include better public access to the river.
On another note, this development could be a great thing for Ale Pie House right across the street as well as the little flower shop on the corner.
More importantly - does this mean The Loop will be closing? I can't support this proposal, then!
We now we return you to serious discussion ... :)
Btw, this is Chicago's Lakeview. This neighborhood has a density of 30,000 residents per square mile and most buildings are less than four stories. They just happen to be pretty packed in with little to no off-street parking:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1954183904_SFJ87wN-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1954183976_GzWMrxk-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1954184449_ddG8Cjg-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1948851880_S7pP85K-M.jpg)
As this evolves, how this development is physically laid out will be just as important in determining scale as the actual number of residential units.
Fishweir Creek is getting ready for a major restoration. The COE is finalizing a environmental assessment which will include marsh restoration, dredging of channel, manatee protections, sewage outfalls, etc. The cost to the COJ and the COE is upward of $5 million. The developer's attorney did not mention the creek amenities until asked. So far they are planning a waterfront promenade (probably as per the 2005-6 plans) and clean up of the public access launch for kayaks. He said that they would work with the COE. Other plans unknown.
Charles, I suspect all the residents of the current Commander Apts many elderly and a some HUD assisted residents will be evicted when the building is removed. Unfortunately among them will be my friends who will have difficulty relocating.
Businesses will be removed from the existing buildings in order for demolition and rebuilding. Loop needs to find a new home.
Every time specifics were asked of the lawyer representing the developer, he danced around and wouldn't give specifics. He said that the deadline for the re-zoning request (only once a quarter) and the market research and the design process made them put in the re-zoning request before all of the details were in place.
REALLY? Once a quarter deadlines force an action on a project that is going to take a couple of years? This is obviously a "toe-in-the-water" first step to gauge the amount of reaction that will happen. I also think that they hoped to slide the re-zoning through and have high ground in the negotiations before anyone noticed. Good lawyer earning his money. Nice try!
I think, along with everyone else but the developer in the room, that a lot more specific information should be required about this project before any other step is taken.
Done right it could be an asset to the neighborhood and the City. Done wrong, a disaster! The devil is in the details!
The marina also might not really be a dead idea. Not on the plans, but not ruled out. That raises the level of complication and concern.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 29, 2013, 06:07:41 PM
More importantly - does this mean The Loop will be closing? I can't support this proposal, then!
We now we return you to serious discussion ... :)
I hope they would be smart enough to offer them a decent option in the retail space they are creating. :) I would be angry to lose my Loop Portabella grilled mushroom sammich! See Charles, you and I have our priorities straight I do believe. lol
Is it known if the entire site will be demolished and redeveloped in one phase?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 29, 2013, 06:04:16 PM
On another note, this development could be a great thing for Ale Pie House right across the street as well as the little flower shop on the corner.
If Ale makes it that long..!
Quote from: ben says on April 29, 2013, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 29, 2013, 06:04:16 PM
On another note, this development could be a great thing for Ale Pie House right across the street as well as the little flower shop on the corner.
If Ale makes it that long..!
Something make you think it won't? Recent reports by other posters say the food is good and everyone likes the delivery option.
From the FTU:
Project would include a riverwalk and kayak launch that would be fully accessible to the public. Apartments would wrap an interior parking garage and retail would be on ground floor of apartment buildings.
QuotePlans are underway for a major new development on St. Johns Avenue, and residents of the area expressed their concern about it Monday, although few specific are available.
The application to the city calls for 350 apartments and 42,000 square feet of retail space -- but Mike Balanky, the developer behind plans to tear down the Commander Apartments and St. Johns Village on Fishweir Creek and build something new, said those are what the city allows, not what will end up on the site.
“Even if we could do that,†he said, “we wouldn’t.â€
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-29/story/st-johns-avenue-development-raises-concerns-among-neighbors
Thanks for posting the Times Union article, hot off the presses.
The proposed land use amendment to change the zoning on the shopping center parcel from "CGC" ("community/general commercial") to "HDR" ("high density residential") is significant in that it allows the developer to increase the number of residential units for the property. Under HDR zoning, you can request up to 60 units per acre. The shopping center parcel consists of approximately 3.3 acres, so that adds up to an additional possible 198 residential units when counted at 60 units per acre.
As Dog Walker said, at the Preview Workshop today, the developer's lawyer said the new PUD (the "companion zoning application" that goes with the proposed land use amendment) will request a total of 350 units for the site, which consists of the Commander Apartments site (currently zoned "HDR" and 2.56 acres) and the shopping center site (currently zoned "CGC" and 3.3 acres).
If the applicant stays on track with his proposed land use amendment application as filed, there are several important upcoming dates, as follows:
May 28, 2013 - Introduce the applicant's Bill to City Council (the applicant's Bill will be read into the record)
June 11, 2013 - First City Council Public Hearing on the matters underlying the Bill
June 13, 2013 - Planning Commission's LPA Public Hearing
June 18, 2013 - Council Committee's Public Hearing
June 25, 2013 - Second City Council Public Hearing on the matters underlying the Bill
I think the "companion zoning application" with the new PUD will be subject to the same dates as those listed above, if the new PUD becomes a completed application to the City Planning Department's satisfaction in short order.
Just trying to understand what's being requested.
If it goes from CGC to HDR, what impact does that have on the type and amount of commercial use? Also, which use has a more significant impact on traffic? More retail and less residential units or more residential and less retail?
Thanks Dogwalker, agree with all of your points. Sometimes a development is mistakenly labeled a size, including the garage, which can lead to misconceptions and exaggerated concerns. I do worry about any plan that emphasizes Fishweir Creek over St. Johns Ave as the "front" because while not currently a very walkable thoroughfare, I do think St. Johns can be, and to "close off" the development in any way to the street (whether "street level" retail is included or not...we all know it's never that desirable of retail under most garages of this nature) will not do any of the other struggling businesses on the other side of the street any favors.
Fishweir Creek as it is now is a dirty, dried up creek with old barnacle covered pilings sticking out and trash strewn about. St. Johns Ave to me is prettier, and could eventually provide some semblance of people watching if developed appropriately.
300-400 units and 42,000 SF retail is not too much of a traffic concern. Would be interesting to see what kind of renter they will be targeting - have to assume affordable housing will not be a part of the plan as that would generate the most backlash and it's not like the city actually gives a damn about it. Lots of Ortega/Avondale residents have lost their big fancy homes lately, and are renting smaller ranch style homes. I could see this serving new residents in the market for a new area home, residents foreclose on nearby, recently divorced folks with a kid or two, etc etc.
The other takeaway is that given the amount of dialogue on this blog, it sounds like no pre-emptive PR was considered by the developer. Good PR is a developer's best friend...as more local folks get in the game, the sooner they learn that the better! :)
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on April 29, 2013, 08:36:23 PMDon't a lot of developers first come out with a huge square feet number, knowing most likely they would have to go with a smaller scale?
From my experience, in the conceptual stage it's always good to be aware of what the maximum allowable number may be. This is useful in further defining what the right mix of retail and residential or "highest and best use" may be for your proforma. The highest maximum number allowable by code doesn't always equal out to the most financially feasible.
Depending on the site, context, soil conditions, etc., more units over a certain point could easily mean a different structural system, foundation, extra floors, elevators, circulation, etc., that may not be worth the extra investment. So it's not out of the realm of realistic possibility that the total number of units could shift up or down, depending on what the market, site conditions and developer's proforma may indicate. The important thing at this stage should be for all parties to keep open lines of communication going with the will to work together for a final product that's a benefit to everyone.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 29, 2013, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on April 29, 2013, 08:36:23 PMDon't a lot of developers first come out with a huge square feet number, knowing most likely they would have to go with a smaller scale?
From my experience, in the conceptual stage it's always good to be aware of what the maximum allowable number may be. This is useful in further defining what the right mix of retail and residential or "highest and best use" may be for your proforma. The highest maximum number allowable by code doesn't always equal out to the most financially feasible.
exactly...especially when seeking comp. plan and/or zoning amendments, it is usually desirable to propose the maximum feasible...that way, all impact analyses are done on the "worst case scenario"
Well shazam! There was a rebuildable old streetcar line from 5 Points and passing this property on Herschel Street, I'm guessing about 200' feet from this property's front door... MOBILITY ANYONE?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on April 29, 2013, 06:49:28 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 29, 2013, 06:07:41 PM
More importantly - does this mean The Loop will be closing? I can't support this proposal, then!
We now we return you to serious discussion ... :)
I hope they would be smart enough to offer them a decent option in the retail space they are creating. :) I would be angry to lose my Loop Portabella grilled mushroom sammich! See Charles, you and I have our priorities straight I do believe. lol
I bet the Loop would be happy to have a location in a new building where their business is actually visible. Their current location is probably the most hidden restaurant in Jax. They probably lose a quarter of their business to people that find it on a map, get there, and can't locate it from the parking lot. They probably lose even more by not being visible along St Johns...
Quote from: thelakelander on April 29, 2013, 05:51:06 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 29, 2013, 05:31:41 PMSeveral speakers expressed concerns about the increase in traffic and that the size of the development is out of scale for the neighborhood.
One speaker brought up a new concern. Fishweir Elementary School is directly across the street and the children of the apartment renters would have to go there and it is already at capacity.
3. In terms of traffic, final development density and scale aside, it seems like this would be a great opportunity to address the intersection of Herschel and St. Johns in a context sensitive manner. If done right, that should result in a safety enhancement for the community.
I agree. The intersection, as it stands today, is in no way pedestrian friendly. The width of the lanes and the geometry of the intersection make it next to impossible to cross on foot from one side to the other. Kind of reminds me of trying to use the crosswalk at the intersection at Forrest & Park- much too wide.
While I have no problems with increasing the number of DUs, I would like to see the developer preserve access to the Fishweir via a riverwalk or something along those lines. If he adds a kayak launch as was mentioned- that would be awesome. Access to the river needs to be increased in the RA neighborhood. Simms, to your point about how "Fishweir Creek is a dirty, dried up creek with old barnacle covered pilings sticking out and trash strewn about." There is currently a project to address this. It would be awesome if the developer contributed to the cost of the dredging and restoration project that is soon going to take place at Fishweir Creek. That is an important project that will vastly help that long neglected waterway- both aesthetically and, more importantly, ecologically.
Dredging the creek will help, but as long as septic tanks are leaking into it the water will remain pretty gross.
Quote from: Josh on April 30, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
Dredging the creek will help, but as long as septic tanks are leaking into it the water will remain pretty gross.
This is true. However, as part of the Better Jax Plan COJ implemented a septic tank phase out program so hopefully, some of the septic issues have been eliminated. Water quality is only part of the issue though. Sedimentation is also a major issue that needs to be addressed through dredging. The Fishweir Creek restoration project is probably discussion for another thread though. I don't want to hijack this one too much :)
Councilman Jim Love has called a neighborhood meeting which will include the developers for Monday, May 13, 7:00PM at the FSCJ Kent Campus Auditorium.
Hopefully the application for the proposed land use amendment ("CGC" to "HDR") for the shopping center parcel, and the related companion zoning application ("PUD") for the shopping center parcel and the Commander Apartments parcel, will both be complete by the Community Meeting.
Whatever is in the PUD rules the day, unless subsequently amended. Once City Council approves a PUD, it runs with the land, so that today's land owner, or the subsequent land owner, may use it.
While the developer said they had certain "less than maximum" intentions at the Preview Workshop, I would keep an eye on the actual language of the PUD, rather than resting on verbal assurances. As many people here have noted, a developer has the option to ask for the maximum in the PUD and then adjust from there in a build out, or not adjust, to suit.
Thanks for the scoop about the Community Meeting, Dog Walker!
Trixie-
What is your agenda?
You have only posted about this subject and sound very learned in the zoning laws of this city.
Hi, Intuition Ale Works, pleased to meet you. (And, your beer rocks!) I live in Avondale and, like many others, will be impacted by the outcome of St. Johns Village Center project. Hence, I was motivated to jump in here.
Not sure I understand all this talk about parking decks and traffic. All Kaiser wants to know is what are the chances we get a decent nudie bar out of this??? SOS has gone downhill since damn TD Bank opened up shop next door. Nudie bar with a view of the crick sounds awfully pleasant.
Thanks, stephendare.
And, no worries on the nudie bar, Kaiser! When the PUD comes out you may review the permitted non-residential uses very carefully and see whether a nudie bar is requested and subsequently passes muster with City Council - lol. In fact, I hope everyone reviews the non-residential (commercial/retail/professional) uses of the PUD very carefully and notes the square footage requested for such items, as they could be added to the total square footage of the residential units requested in the project.
This land is pretty tricky for any developer because of the shape of the lot, the traffic patterns, and the water. As a developer, you may elect to feature Fishweir Creek for your tenants (since it could arguably be a draw post dredging), but you must provide parking. Hmm...so maybe you want to jam the parking into some kind of garage on St. Johns Avenue. Hmm...but wait, are there any mandates of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay that say you cannot just plunk the parking garage on St. Johns Avenue, or that say buildings of a certain kind can be no more than a given height in this area? Then there are the traffic concerns - bummer. In addition to those homes that are right on St. Johns Avenue nearby, there are also pockets of multiple homes nearby where the only way in and out of the neighborhood is St. Johns Avenue, unless one uses a boat to cross the St. Johns River.
Keep your eye on the PUD. ; )
Here's hoping the new Context Sensitive Streets design guidelines will be in place for this development. They would make a real difference.
I just kind of wish they would close down St. Johns Ave from.... let's say Hungry Howies to Dancy and leave it open for only pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcycles.
That little 1/3mile stretch is one of the better ones in Jax.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 01, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
I just kind of wish they would close down St. Johns Ave from.... let's say Hungry Howies to Dancy and leave it open for only pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcycles.
That little 1/3mile stretch is one of the better ones in Jax.
Sorry, that's a ridiculous suggestion.
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 01, 2013, 09:05:26 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 01, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
I just kind of wish they would close down St. Johns Ave from.... let's say Hungry Howies to Dancy and leave it open for only pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcycles.
That little 1/3mile stretch is one of the better ones in Jax.
Sorry, that's a ridiculous suggestion.
First off, it was a very un-serious comment and of course it sounds ridiculous when taken out of context.
It makes perfect sense if you fantasize about hitting that series of curves at 60mph +, but can't do it because you're terrified, not of getting a ticket, but of someone pulling out in front of you or walking their kids across the street.
Site plan is going to be the key on this one. It has to integrate well with the street and the water. A wide sidewalk, bike rack, landscaping and hidden parking will go a long way.
I know we aren't there yet but if this were a streetcar TOD it would be a home run.
It actually looks like a great infill project to work on. The things Trixie mentions shouldn't be viewed as challenges. They are opportunities to create something really unique that could be a proud focal point for the developer and the community. Jeffrey is spot on that site planning and seamless integration with the surrounding context will be key with this one.
Thank God that Jim Love has called a meeting to discuss things. Now everything will be alright!
We'll see how NIMBY the area is. I used to fantasize about redeveloping this site myself...I'm very short on the local demographics and politics of the area, and in-place infrastructure is non-supportive. Have to be very careful how to proceed, and then there's the whole debt issue and capital commitments (have to pitch Jacksonville, Ortega/Avondale, the site, brick/mortar retail, for sale condos in arguably the worst condo market ever, etc to lenders and depending on whether your equity is fully discretionary or not...even if it's not, you likely have to be your own equity and sponsorship given the above).
In 2009 a pedestrian was killed in the 4100 block of Herschel. That's the block immediately south side of the bridge.
It's not hard to understand the dangers here with the bridge; shopping destinations and restaurants east and west sides of the creek; about 4 roads coming together requiring many confusing turning lanes; two schools; and fairly compact residential neighborhoods (full of dreaded NIMBYs). This a well traveled area for cars coming and going from Ortega, Avondale and the Roosevelt mall area and cyclists and walkers heading to the local shops and restaurants or to Roosevelt.
Yes, it could be a good opportunity to improve safety and fix the confusing design of this area.
Trixie-
Again I believe you are more than a "concerned citizen" and I wonder why you hide behind anonymity.
Your posts show a strong working knowledge of land use, especially in Riverside/Avondale.
I believe you, along with others on this forum, are attempting to negatively impact the public opinion of this project before it even is presented to us.
I have seen this all before with Blacksheep, Kickbacks, Dahlia's, Salty Fig and Mellow Mushroom.
I witnessed the organized ambush of John Valentino, by "concerned neighbors" at his community meeting and I expect the same at this upcoming meeting.
I find it to be very disappointing and frustrating as a Jacksonville native, Avondale resident and Riverside business owner.
Quote from: simms3 on May 01, 2013, 10:43:36 AM
We'll see how NIMBY the area is. I used to fantasize about redeveloping this site myself...I'm very short on the local demographics and politics of the area, and in-place infrastructure is non-supportive. Have to be very careful how to proceed, and then there's the whole debt issue and capital commitments (have to pitch Jacksonville, Ortega/Avondale, the site, brick/mortar retail, for sale condos in arguably the worst condo market ever, etc to lenders and depending on whether your equity is fully discretionary or not...even if it's not, you likely have to be your own equity and sponsorship given the above).
This would be a luxury rental development, not condos.
I have done more than a bit of due diligence today and this is where the process for the St. John's Village project currently stands. The property owners are requesting changes that would impact what was decided and agreed upon in bill 2005-1330E, which was actually enacted on 4/4/2006.
Below this post in follow up is the original bill that specifies what was decided upon at that time including many of the issues currently under discussion on this thread. Below this is attached the PUD document. The property owner is now asking for a PUD that would increase the amount of units as well as other specifics as delineated in the attached bill. The documentation that was submitted by the property owner is not complete and changes to that document have been requested by the city before it is re-submitted which is due on Monday May 13, 2013. This is the same day that Councilman Jim Love has requested a public meeting to be held at FSCJ in the auditorium from 7:00PM to 8:30PM.
Here is what everyone needs to know and what I believe may be part of what "Trixie" is trying to get across with his/her postings to this thread. The PUD application once processed and accepted cannot be readily changed or amended after May 24, 2013, which was possible in the past. To amend the PUD after the 24th a special request would have to be made of planning which they would more than likely refuse. This will result in a situation where we will likely see an approved PUD amended during a council meeting, literally while the bill is on the floor. The amendment regarding size or any other issue could be promoted by a member of council and actually changed while on the floor (as we have seen often enough in past legislation). I more than anticipate that this is how this will be played out.
fieldafm and Intuition ale, you are both correct in your summation of the new poster. "Trixie" does live in Avondale area and indeed has inroads to and understanding of detailed planning department information. :) I was able to verify that, yet will not "out" Trixie" online as that just would not be cool. I don't expect they will be forthcoming either, but in any case their input will not directly impact how people respond to this development. Open minds will remain open, those who are taking sides, have already done so in most cases. This is Avondale remember! lol
I can also tell you that phone calls to Jim Love and the planning department have been many in number and in some cases quite lengthy and detail specific. The for and against crowd are already drawing lines in the sand and this "will" be a knock down drag out interaction before it is all said and done as folks with inroads to and understanding of City Hall are on both sides of this issue. However, most of what has been discussed in the thread to date is still speculation as there is "no finished proposal" in the planning department as of this moment.
I have quoted part of the 2005-1330 Bill that must be addressed and has yet to be completed in order for the request of the property owner to move forward. Pay special attention to b & c which are in the legislation because of concerns on the part of the council at that time and will be a point of contention by some. Top of the list is traffic followed by the dredging issue
while there has been movement in some city departments with regard to what should be done with Fishweir Creek, "nothing" has been decided, determined or presented to the planning department. There is also the issue of the $800K to be deposited by the property owner in advance of a deal to mitigate dredging costs. Note St. John's Avenue is a DOT road and not city owned. DOT has not weighed in on the development or road impact with city planning at this timeI would recommend that all interested parties attend the meeting slated for May 13th. I also personally hope that we do not see a rigid NIMBY resistance to this project until we actually know what is being proposed and if the city requirements mentioned above have been met. I am not taking a position on the project which is just a few blocks from my own Avondale home until I see what the actual PUD request says. :)
Quote
(a) Development shall proceed in accordance with the Traffic
Engineering Division Memorandum dated December 5, 2005, and
attached hereto as Exhibit 3, or as otherwise approved by the
Traffic Engineering Divislon
and the Planning and Development
Department.
(b)
Prior to verification of substantial compliance of the
PUD, the developer shall provide a localized traffic study showing
no reduction in the Level of Service on St. Johns Avenue, and the
intersections of Herschel Street, Oak Street, and Riverside
Avenue.
(c)
Prior to commencement of any construction activities for
the proposed development, the developer shall deposit $800,000 in
an interest bearing account identified by the City to be used for
the costs associated with dredging Fishweir
Creek. The detailed
terms of this condition shall be set forth in a separate agreement
with the City, which shall included terms regarding draw requests
and refund of any excess funds
Amended 3/28/06
Introduced and amended by the Land Use and Zoning Committee:
ORDINANCE 2005-1330-E
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.90f
ACRES
LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 14 AT 3946 AND
4000 ST. JOHNS AVENUE BETWEEN HERSCHEL STREET
AND DUPONT CIRCLE (R.E. NO(S)
. 092941-0000 AND
092703-0000), AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, OWNED BY
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND
ST. JOHNS VILLAGE CENTER, LLC, FROM PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND RMD-D
(RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY-D)
DISTRICT TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT, AS
DEFINED AND
CLASSIFIED UNDER THE ZONING CODE,
TO ALLOW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, AS DESCRIBED
IN THE APPROVED WRITTEN DESCRIPTION AND SITE
PLAN FOR THE ST. JOHNS VILLAGE CENTER PUD;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Jacksonville Harbor Limited Partnership and St. Johns
Village Center, LLC, the owner(s)
of approximately 5.904
acres
located in Council District 14 at 3946 and 4000 St. Johns Avenue
between Herschel Street and DuPont
Circle (R.E.
No (s)
. 094941-0000
and 092703-OOOO),
as more particularly described in Exhibit 1.
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Subject
Property"),
has applied for a rezoning and reclassification of that
property from PUD (Planned Unit Development) and RMD-D (Residential
Medium Density-D)
Districts to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
District, as described in Section 1 below; and
Amended 3/28/06
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered
the
application and has rendered an advisory opinion; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Zoning Committee, after due notice
and public hearing, has made its recommendation to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council flnds
that such rezoning is: (1)
consistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; (2) furthers the
goals, objectives and policies of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and
(3) is not in conflict with any portion of the City's land use
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds the proposed rezoning does not
adversely affect the orderly development of the City as embodied in
the Zoning Code; will not adversely affect the health and safety of
residents in the area; will not be detrimental to the natural
environment or to the use or development of the adjacent properties
in the general neighborhood; and will accomplish the objectives and
meet the standards of Section 656.340 (Planned
Unit Development) of
the Zoning Code; now therefore
BE IT ORDAINH)
by the Council of the City of Jacksonville:
Section 1. Property Rezoned. The Subject Property is
hereby rezoned and reclassified from PUD (Planned Unit Development)
and RMD-D
(Residential Medium Density-D) Districts to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) District, as shown and described in the approved
site plan dated March 23, 2006 and written description dated March
21, 2006 for the St. Johns Village Center PUD. The PUD district
for the Subject Property shall generally allow mixed-use
development, all as more specifically shown and described in the
approved St. Johns Village Center PUD
site plan and written
description both on file as Revised Exhibit 2 in the City Council
Legislative Services Division.
Section 2. Rezoning Approved Subject to Conditions. This
rezoning is approved subject to the following conditions:
1
-.
Amended 3/28/06
(a) Development shall proceed in accordance with the Traffic
Engineering Division Memorandum dated December 5, 2005, and
attached hereto as Exhibit 3, or as otherwise approved by the
Traffic Engineering Divislon
and the Planning and Development
Department.
(b)
Prior to verification of substantial compliance of the
PUD, the developer shall provide a localized traffic study showing
no reduction in the Level of Service on St. Johns Avenue, and the
intersections of Herschel Street, Oak Street, and Riverside
Avenue.
(c)
Prior to commencement of any construction activities for
the proposed development, the developer shall deposit $800,000 in
an interest bearing account identified by the City to be used for
the costs associated with dredging Fishweir
Creek. The detailed
terms of this condition shall be set forth in a separate agreement
with the City, which shall included terms regarding draw requests
and refund of any excess funds.
(d)
The developer shall be responsible for all off-site
landscaping and hardscape improvements shown on the site plan,
subject to approval by the Florida Department of Transportation.
If constructed, the landscaping and hardscape improvements shall be
maintained, in perpetuity, by the Homeowners Association.
(e)
The developer shall obtain all necessary Florida
Department of Transportation permits prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
(f)
At the time of verification of substantial compliance of
the PUD, the developer shall submit a plan for drainage an erosion
control during construction.
(g)
The tower structure shall contain no more than 100
residential units. The reduction to 100 units reflects a reduction
of the mass of the tower by 25 units (average 1,700 square feet per
unit) from the previously proposed 125-unit plan.
-3-
Amended 3/28/06
Section 3. Owner and Description. The Subject Property
is owned by Jacksonville Harbor Limited Partnership and St. Johns
Village Center, LLC and described in Exhibit 1.
The agent listed
in the application is Karl J. Sanders, Esquire with an address of
600 East Bay Street, Suite 500, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 and a
telephone number of (904)
633-7979.
Section 4. Effective Date. The adoption of this
ordinance shall be deemed to constitute a quasi-judicial action of
the City Council and shall become effective upon signature by the
Council President and the Council Secretary.
Legislation Prepared By Shannon K. Eller
~:\shared\LECIS.CC\2005\ord\PUD\2005-1330-E.doc
Cont...
EXHIBIT " D
Revised Written Description
ST. JOHN'S VILLAGE CENTER
March 21,2006
Current Land Use Designation: HDR and CGC
Current Zoning District: RMD-D &
PUD
Requested Zoning District: PUD
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN
Jacksonville Harbor Limited Partnership and St. Johns Village Center, L.L.C. (the
"Applicants") propose to rezone approximately 5.9 +I-
acres of property from RMD-D and PUD
to Planned Unit Development ("PUD). The subject property is bound on the south by Fishweir
Creek; on the east by DuPont
Circle; on the west by Herschel Street and on the north by St.
Johns Avenue, as more fully depicted on Exhibit "Kn
(the "Property"). As described below, the
PUD zoning district is requested to permit the redevelopment of the Property for a mixed-use
residential and commercial community.
The St. John's Village Center is being planned as an urban village that will vertically and
horizontally integrate residential and commercial uses. Currently, the site is divided into two
separate parcels, one of which is home to the "Commander Tower"apartments and one which is
home to the "St. Johns Village" that has a variety of retail, restaurant and office uses. The
redevelopment of this site into an urban village will include a new condominium high-rise (to
replace the existing Commander Tower) and an integrated mix of small-scale buildings with
retail/office/multi-familylparking
uses on the remainder of the site (the "Project"). Additionally,
the Project will include a public boardwalk along Fishweir
Creek (along with multiple boat slips)
that extends from the westerly end of the high-rise condominium development to the western
edge of the remainder of the development (towards Herschel Street).
The maximum permitted uses within the PUD shall be: 166 residential units and 20,000
enclosed square feet of retail commercial uses. Of the 166 residential units, 100 will be located
on the 2.56-acre Commander parcel (which has a residential land use classification of HDR) and
the remaining 66 will be located on the 3.3-acre St. Johns Village parcel (which has a
commercial land use classification of CGC). Vehicular access will be provided along St Johns
Avenue at the eastern and western ends of the property. All of the structures will be compatible
with each other, and the final architectural design shall be consistent with the conceptual
elevations attached hereto as Exhibit "E-2."
11.
SITE SPECIFICS
The Property currently is owned by Jacksonville Harbor Limited Partnership and St.
Johns Village Center, L.L.C. and is more particularly described in the legal description attached
as Exhibit "1"
to this application. The Property has current land use designations of both HDR
(2.56 acres) and CGC (3.3 acres). A conceptual site plan of the proposed development is attached
as Exhibit "E-I"
to this application (the "Site Plan").
Page 1
of 13
111.
DESCRIPTION OF PERMITTED USES
A.
Permitted Uses
1.
Permitted Uses: A maximum of 166 multi-family residential units, as defined
below; a maximum of 20,000 enclosed square feet of retail commercial uses, as
defined below. Permitted uses also include parking garage(s).
Uses may be
integrated vertically and horizontally; provided, however, that commercial uses
shall not be permitted above residential uses.
B.
Multi-Family Residential
1.
Permitted uses and structures. Multiple dwelling uses (including fee simple or
condominium ownership), as well as lofts and residences which open onto the
street, as well as uses related thereto (including welcome center, sales office,
clubhouse, resident entertainment room and similar uses).
2.
Permitted accessory uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures are
permitted as provided in Section 656.403, City of Jacksonville Zoning Code.
3.
Minimum lot requirements. Described in and in accordance with Section D,
hereof.
4.
Minimum building sefbach.
Described in and in accordance with Section D,
hereof.
5.
Muximum
height of structures. The existing Commander Tower (which is 17-
stories tall) will be replaced with a new condominium high-rise (the tallest portion
of which--located on the southwest portion of the Commander parcel--will be 17-
stories tall [approximately 185 feet in height above grade around the building
footprint]). The waterfront "wing" of the building (facing South) will step down
in height to 15 stories [approximately 165 feet in height] and then to 13 stories
[approximately 145 feet in height]. The waterfront wing of the building will also
include a series of 4-story townhomes [approximately 60 feet in height] in front
of
the towers, thereby offsetting the height and scale of the taller buildings. The 4-
story townhomes will also be located along the eastern edge of the parcel, along
the waterfront, as well as along the western "wing" of the building. The western
wing of the building will step down in height to 14 stories [approximately 155
feet in height], then to 11 stories [approximately 125 feet in height], then to 9
stories (approximately 105 feet in height) and then to 3 stories (approximately 45
feet in height).
The remaining structures (on the St. Johns Village parcel) will "step down" in
height toward Herschel Street (five stories and four stories, respectively). A
detailed depiction of the respective heights of the proposed buildings is set forth
in the "Building Height Exhibit" attached hereto as Exhibit "E-3." Any variance
in height by more than 8 feet from that depicted in Exhibit E-3 shall require an
Administrative Modification to the approved PUD. Any variance in height by
more than 20 feet shall require a Minor Modification to the approved PUD.
Page 2 of 13
Notice of either an Administrative Modification variance or a Minor Modification
variance shall be provided to Riverside Avondale Preservation, Inc. by certified
mail.
For purposes of this PUD, "at grade" is expected to be approximately 9.5 feet
above sea level. By way of comparison, St Johns Avenue is approximately 14
feet above sea level, and the existing grade at the front door of the Commander
tower is approximately 8 feet above sea level.
C.
Commercial
1.
Pennitted uses and structures.
a.
Retail outlets for the sale of food and drugs including grocery stores,
apparel, toys, sundries and notions, books and stationary, leather goods
and luggage, jewelry (including watch repair), art, cameras or
photographic supplies (including camera repair), sporting goods, hobby
shops and pet shops (but not boarding kennels), musical instruments,
florists or shops, delicatessens, bakeries (but not wholesale bakeries),
home hmishings
and appliances, office equipment or furniture,
hardware,
antiques, and similar retail uses.
b.
Service
establishments such as barber and beauty shops, shoe repair shops,
restaurants, interior decorators, health clubs and gymnasiums, travel
agencies, dry cleaners, home equipment rental and similar uses.
c.
Banks, savings and loans, and other financial institutions and similar uses,
including walk-up ATM
facilities.
d.
All types of professional and business offices.
e.
Fruit, vegetable, poultry or fish market.
f.
Libraries, museums, and community centers.
g.
Express or parcel delivery offices, but not trucking distribution centers.
h.
Outside retail sales of holiday items, subject to the performance standards
and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the City of Jacksonville
Zoning Code.
i.
Art galleries, dance, art, gymnastics, karate and martial arts and music
studios, and theaters for stage performances.
j.
Day care centers meeting the performance standards and development
criteria set forth in Part 4 of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Code.
k.
Restaurants which include the retail sale and service of all alcoholic
beverages, including liquor, beer, or wine, for on-premises consumption,
Page 3 of 13
including permanent or restricted outside sale and service.
1.
Restaurants with the outside sale and service of food, meeting the
performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the
City of Jacksonville Zoning Code.
m.
Establishments which include the retail sale and service of all alcoholic
beverages, including liquor, beer, or wine for on-premises consumption,
including permanent or restricted outside sale and service subject to the
criteria set forth in Part 4 of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Code.
n.
Establishments that include the retail sale and service of beer or wine for
off-premises consumption.
2.
Prohibited uses. Any and all forms
of drive-thru
facilities, including but not
limited to drug stores, financial
institutions, dry cleaners, and restaurants, shall be
strictly prohibited.
3.
Permitted accessoy
uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures are
permitted as provided in Section 656.403, City of Jacksonville Zoning Code.
4.
Minimum lot requirements. Described in and in accordance with Section D,
hereof.
5.
Minimum building setbacks. Described in and in accordance with Section D,
hereof.
6.
Maximum height of structures. The building containing the commercial uses is
located on the westernmost side of the property. As more fully depicted on
Exhibit E-3, this building will be limited to four stories in height (with residential
units located above the commercial uses).
D.
Overall PUD
Design Criteria
1.
Minimum yard requirements. Due to the vertical and horizontal integration of
uses within this PUD, the PUD will not have traditional minimum yard setbacks
for each structure. Accordingly, the minimum building setbacks for all uses and
structures shall be:
a.
COMMANDER PARCEL
North (from adjacent residential properties): 40 feet
South (from Fishweir
Creek): 20 feet
East (from Fishweir
Creek): 20 feet
West 0
feet
b.
ST JOHNS VILLAGE PARCEL
North (from St. Johns Avenue): 10 feet (5-story mid-rise)
Page 4 of 13
0
feet (4-story mid-rise)
West (from Herschel Street): 0
feet
South (from Fishweir
Creek): 0
feet
East 0 feet
2.
Maximum lot coverage by all buildings. The maximum parcel coverage by all
buildings shall be eighty-five percent (85%).
3.
Access. Access to the site shall be off St. Johns Avenue. The location of the
access points as shown on the Site Plan may vary prior to development; provided,
however, that the final location and design of all access points and internal drives
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Development
Department and the Traffic Engineer.
4.
Pedestrian circulation. Sidewalks shall be maintained and improved along all
street frontages. A public boardwalk shall be constructed along Fishweir
Creek at
a minimum width of eight (8) feet. Unfettered public access shall be provided to
and from said boardwalk f?om
Herschel Street and at least one perpendicular
access point from St. Johns Avenue, as more fully depicted on the conceptual site
plan attached hereto. The location of all sidewalks,
boardwalk and pedestrian
access is conceptual and final sidewalk and boardwalk plans are subject to the
review and approval of the Planning and Development Department. Public access
to the boardwalk may be limited between 10:OO
p.m. and 6:00
a.m. for safety
reasons.
5.
Recreational/Open
Space. The proposed recreationaWopen
space includes
landscaped courtyards located throughout the site.
6.
Signage.
a.
PUD Sim
: The PUD shall be permitted two (2) double-faced or single-
faced illuminated monument signs, not to exceed forty-eight (48) square
feet in area per sign face (not including the structure on which the sign
face is mounted) and six (6) feet in height, both to be located at the PUD's
entrances on St. Johns Avenue (as shown on the
Site Plan). Multiple uses
and/or
tenants within the PUD may be identified on these PUD signs.
Additionally, the monument signs may be replaced with wall-mounted
signs of the same size.
b.
Commercial Establishment Signs: Commercial uses within the PUD shall
be permitted wall signs, awnings with identification signage,
and under
canopy signage
which collectively shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
square footage of the occupancy front faqade
or respective side of building
abutting a public right-of-way, or approved private street on each
establishment. Signs may be front-lit only. Neon signs and back-lit signs
are prohibited. These sign restrictions shall he included as terms in all
retail commercial leases. Any variance kom
these standards shall require
an Administrative Modification to the approved PUD and shall be noticed
to Riverside Avondale Preservation, Inc.
by certified mail.
Page 5 of 13
c.
Directional Signs: Directional Signs that indicate ways to and from the
pedestrian walkway and the garage entrances shall be permitted in the
PUD. The design of such directional signs shall be reflective of the
overall character of the PUD, and may include the relevant logo and name.
Vehicle-oriented Directional Signs shall be a maximum of ten (10) square
feet in area per sign face.
d.
Tem~orarv Signs:
(i)
Real estate, construction and other such temporav
Parcel activity
signs not to exceed a maximum of forty-eight (48) square feet
each shall be permitted throughout the PUD, provided that only
one such sign per individual activity shall be permitted on each
Parcel.
(ii)
Model Units and Vacant Space: Signs to identify entrances to
buildings that contain residential model units not to exceed twelve
(12) square feet shall be permitted throughout the PUD. Signs to
advertise commercial space that is vacant not to exceed nine (9)
square feet shall be permitted to be placed in the windows of such
vacant commercial establishment throughout the PUD.
e.
Because signs (a) through (d), above, are architectural elements of the
PUD intended to be compatible with and complimentary of the buildings
in the PUD, they may be located in structures or framed that are part of the
architectural project. Accordingly, the area of such signs shall be
computed on the basis of the smallest regular geometric shape
encompassing the outermost individual letter, words, and numbers on the
sign.
7.
Pmking
and Loading Requirements. The Project shall provide a mix of both on-
street and off-street parking and parking
garages within the Property. Parking
requirements shall include a minimum of one (1) on-site parking space for each
one-bedroom residential unit, two (2) on-site parking
spaces for each two-
bedroom residential unit, and two (2) on-site parking spaces for each three-
bedroom residential unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the buildings on the
westernmost side of the project (the mixed-use buildings) shall have a minimum
of one and one-half (1.5) on-site parking spaces for each two-bedroom residential
unit. Additionally, there shall be one (1)
on-site parking space per three hundred
(300) square feet of commercial space. A minimum of fifteen (15) spaces will be
provided for visitor parking.
8.
Landscaping/Fencing/Screening.
Landscaping will be installed and maintained in
accordance with the Landscape and Tree Protection Regulations set,forth
in Part
12 of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Code; provided, however, that due to the
horizontal and vertical integration of these uses internal buffering between
residential and commercial uses shall not be required within the PUD. Also, the
parking garage shall not be deemed to be vehicular use areas for the purposes of
Page 6 of 13
the Landscape and Tree Protection Regulations. A combination of fencing and
landscaping shall be used along the common boundary with the DuPont Circle
residences to form a visual screen buffer from the adjoining DuPont
Circle
residences.
cont.
9.
Architecture. All of the structures will be compatible with each other, and the
final architectural design shall be consistent with the conceptual elevations
attached hereto as Exhibit "E-2." The developer shall request an opinion of
appropriateness from the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission for a
determination of consistency with the architectural detail standards for new
construction set forth in Chapter 307 of the Jacksonville Municipal Code. Final
architectural design of the development shall be subject to review and approval by
the Planning and Development Department and District Council Member to
ensure consistency with the conceptual elevations attached hereto.
Additionally, the exposed side of the garage for the high-rise buildings (facing
Northmortheast
toward the existing residential lots) will be designed with
architectural louvers to conceal the openings between garage floors, and the
architectural elements of the garage building will be compatible with the
surrounding high-rise buildings.
10.
Lighting. Any and all forms
of exterior lighting shall be "fnll cut-off' only and
designed and installed to localize illumination onto the Property, and to minimize
unreasonable interference or impact on any adjacent property outside of the PUD.
The design of the light fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the
Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Riverside and Avondale Historic District,
as defined in Chapter 307. Garage light sources shall be designed so as not to
directly illuminate onto the surrounding residences.
11.
Stormwater Retention. Stormwater retentionldetention
system shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Jacksonville
and the St. Johns River Water Management District, and shall only include
underground detention vaults. The stormwater system will be designed and
constructed so as to preclude additional runoff onto adjacent residential
properties.
12.
Utilities. Electric power is available to the site provided for by the JEA. Water
and sewer services will be provided by the City of Jacksonville.
13.
Ownership and Maintenance of Common Facilities. A master property owners'
association shall be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of common
areas and facilities.
14.
Ternporaiy
Uses. Temporary sales, leasing and construction offices and trailers
shall (a) be allowed to be placed within the PUD, @)
shall be maintained in good
order, condition and repair, and (d) shall be removed upon Certificate of
occupancy.
15.
Bus Stop. Any mass transit access improvements shall be consistent with the
Page 7 of 13
historic character of the area and shall incorporate the design elements of the
"historical theme" transit stop defined in the JTA Mobility Access Handbook, or
other design elements consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines for the
Riverside and Avondale Historic District, as defmed
in Chapter 307.
16.
Dumpsters. Any and all dumpster shall be depicted on the Site Plan and shall be
enclosed by one hundred percent (100%) opaque walls and gates to match
building material and character. Dumpsters shall be strictly prohibited from the
northern property line adjacent to DuPont Circle residences.
17.
Mechanical equipment. Any and all mechanical equipment and rooftop
appurtenances, including but not limited to HVAC units, vents, wireless
communications facilities, antennas, or satellite dishes, shall not be visible from
street level. Any and all required or installed noise-producing equipment or
appurtenances shall be designed, located, and adequately buffered to minimize the
impact of noise on adjacent property outside the PUD. Mechanical equipment
shall be strictly prohibited from the northern property line adjacent to DuPont
Circle residences.
18.
Construction. To minimize adverse construction impacts on the adjacent
neighborhood during the construction process, construction activities shall be
governed as follows: (a) construction workers shall be prohibited from and
instructed not to park in any adjacent neighborhood, (b) construction work shall
be limited to the hours of 7:30
a.m. to 7:30
p.m., (c) a pest control company shall
he engaged to address rodent control during demolition of existing buildings, and
(d) the Applicant shall provide Riverside Avondale Preservation with (i) a
designated contact person for any and all construction related issues and
(ii)
quarterly construction updates, as well as notice of any and all anticipated unusual
construction disturbances (iii) and if at any time during construction there is not
enough parking available on-site for construction workers, an off-site location that
will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood will be chosen and workers
will be transported to and from said site by the contractor.
19.
Marina and docks. Any marina or docks shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Jacksonville and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Minor or major boat repairs, as well as
the sale and storage of fuel products, shall be strictly prohibited. A maximum of
eight (8) boat slips, or no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total number of
slips (whichever is less), shall he reserved for public access. The boardwalk shall
accommodate boat access and docking.
20.
Mod$cations.
The Developer shall notify RAP by certified mail prior to seeking
either an Administrative Modification or Minor Modification to the approved
PUD. Any changes or amendments to this approved PUD district shall only be
accomplished by Minor Modification or by the filing of a rezoning application
pursuant to Section 656.341 of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Code. Upon filing
either a Minor Modification or rezoning, the Applicant shall concurrently notify
both Riverside Avondale Preservation and the respective district City
Councilmember via certified mail with a copy of said filing and all related revised
Page 8 of 13
plans.
E.
Dredging
Prior to commencement of any construction activities for the proposed
development, the developer shall deposit $800,000into an interest-bearing escrow
account for the costs associated with dredging Fishweir
Creek. The precise terms
of this requirement shall be set forth in a separate agreement with the City to
govern the details of this transaction, including draw requests and refund of any
excess funds.
IV.
PUD REVIEW CRITERIA
A.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses of the PUD are
consistent with both the HDR and the CGC land use categories.
B.
Roadways/Consistency
with the Concurrency Management System. The
development of the hoperty
will comply with the requirements of the
Concurrency Management System. The proposed development has been assigned
CCAS No. 43857 and City Development No. 7234.
C.
Allocation
of Residential Land Use. The HDR land use permits residential
development at a density of up to sixty (60) units per gross acre. The proposed
PUD permits up to 20 dwelling units per acre on the portion of the site designated
with a CGC land use classification, and up to 39 units per acre on the portion of
site with the HDR land use classification. Both of these densities are within the
permitted residential allocations provided in the Comprehensive Plan.
D.
Internal CompatibilityNehicnlar
Access. The Site Plan addresses access and
circulation within the site. Access to the site is available from St. Johns Avenue.
The final location of all access points is subject to the review and approval of the
City Traffic Engineer and the Planning and Development Department. The PUD
also contains detailed provisions regarding signage,
landscaping, and architectural
compatibility.
E.
External CompatibilityIIntensity
of Development. The developnient
is
consistent and comparable to the planned and permitted development in the area.
The development will enhance the appearance of the area through upgrading of an
older infill
site.
F.
Recreationlopen
Space. The proposed recreationallopen
space includes
landscaped courtyards located throughout the site, as well enclosed recreational
facilities permitted within the multiple-dwelling units.
G.
Impact on Wetlands. The proposed redevelopment will have tlo
adverse impact
on wetlands.
Page 9 of 13
H.
Listed Species Regulations. Not applicable.
I.
Off-Street Parking &
Loading Requirements. Parking includes both on and
off-street spaces and parking garages, as more fully depicted on the Site Plan and
above in Section D.
J.
Sidewalks, Trails and Bikeways. Sidewalks will be provided along all street
frontages. A public boardwalk will be provided along Fishweir
Creek, up to the
southwest boundary of the Commander parcel. Unfettered public access shall be
provided to and from said boardwalk from Herschel Street and at least one
perpendicular access point from St. Johns Avenue, as more fully depicted on the
conceptual site plan attached hereto. The location of all sidewalks, boardwalk and
public access is conceptual and final sidewalk plans are subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 10 of 13
I've been told that, thanks to the Legislature taking actions to make it easier for developers, the DOT doesn't have nearly the 'say' it once had on local developments, even on state roads.
I am hearing that as well Charles. This situation is going to be detail difficult and I honestly believe that all parties in City Hall are not completely clear about what DOT can or will do in regard to this project. I have been told that some documentation from DOT is expected in the planning department relatively shortly.
QuoteI also personally hope that we do not see a rigid NIMBY resistance to this project until we actually know what is being proposed and if the city requirements mentioned above have been met.
EXACTLY!
QuoteEthics hard to come by in 2013
It is BEYOND unethical for employees of Planning to be spreading innuendo about development plans that haven't even been completed yet. That's a serious problem.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 01, 2013, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: simms3 on May 01, 2013, 10:43:36 AM
We'll see how NIMBY the area is. I used to fantasize about redeveloping this site myself...I'm very short on the local demographics and politics of the area, and in-place infrastructure is non-supportive. Have to be very careful how to proceed, and then there's the whole debt issue and capital commitments (have to pitch Jacksonville, Ortega/Avondale, the site, brick/mortar retail, for sale condos in arguably the worst condo market ever, etc to lenders and depending on whether your equity is fully discretionary or not...even if it's not, you likely have to be your own equity and sponsorship given the above).
This would be a luxury rental development, not condos.
Could be even trickier - people in the area are averse to luxury multitenant units (look at sales at Ortega Landing - what a vomit of sales velocity and pricing that was). If people can't afford or don't desire luxury 2+BR condos in the area, I wonder what would make them have a different opinion of luxury rentals (which undoubtedly will exceed monthly cost of a mortgage for a similar unit for sale). There aren't yet many or any comps for luxury rentals in the area, so it will be interesting to see how 5000 Towne leases up (far fewer units in that one).
There is a cautionary tale from our larger neighbor to the north (Atlanta), where developers had an investment thesis that residents of Buckhead currently in large estates would prefer to exchange square footage and land for an easier to maintain luxury condo...many developers lost millions (even tens of millions in one case). That's Buckhead where condos have actually sold in fair quantity in the $2-$6+M range in the past. Now they are luxury rentals in many cases, just now leasing up as the economy comes back...recapped or repurchased in foreclosure for a smaller basis and rental rates are still $2-$4psf for these units (all basically in-line with "replacement cost" depending on sale pricing assumptions). The renters are all young and the entertainment and employment options nearby are dense...without the huge employment center that Buckhead has become and the local bar scene which has come back since it was destroyed in the early 2000s, there would be no renters as the old rich farts clearly prefer their homes. Good luck to the local Jax developers.
So it appears the residential will be 166 units. Good (I doubt the site/demand could support more). Averaging 1,700 SF (screams condo conversion to me...there is talk of an HOA, which will likely be paid for by landlord of apartments...does that get passed through?, and commercial tenants)
Developer to help pay for dredging Fishweir Creek ($800K) and install off-site lanscape (does that mean city ROW as depicted in rendering?). HOA to maintain landscape (well of course, who else is going to - the city of Jax? LoL).
Greater of 8 or 20% of constructed slips to be reserved for public (good).
All sounds fair to me :)
FYI
Quote5.
Maximum height of structures.
The existing Commander Tower (which is 17-
stories tall) will be replaced with a new condominium high-rise (the tallest portion
of which--located on the southwest portion of the Commander parcel--will be 17-
stories tall [approximately 185 feet in height above grade around the building
footprint]). The waterfront "wing" of the building (facing South) will step down
in height to 15 stories [approximately 165 feet in height] and then to 13 stories
[approximately 145 feet in height]. The waterfront wing of the building will also
include a series of 4-story townhomes [approximately 60 feet in height] in front
of the towers, thereby offsetting the height and scale of the taller buildings. The 4-
story townhomes will also be located along the eastern edge of the parcel, along
the waterfront, as well as along the western "wing" of the building. The western
wing of the building will step down in height to 14 stories [approximately 155
feet in height], then to 11 stories [approximately 125 feet in height], then to 9
stories (approximately 105 feet in height) and then to 3 stories (approximately 45
feet in height).
The remaining structures (on the St. Johns Village parcel) will "step down" in
height toward Herschel Street (five stories and four stories, respectively). A
detailed depiction of the respective heights of the proposed buildings is set forth
in the "Building Height Exhibit" attached hereto as Exhibit "E-3." Any variance
in height by more than 8 feet from that depicted in Exhibit E-3 shall require an
Administrative Modification to the approved PUD. Any variance in height by
more than 20 feet shall require a Minor Modification to the approved PUD.
Here we go with the signs again...
QuoteSigns may be front-lit only. Neon signs and back-lit signs
are prohibited. These sign restrictions shall he included as terms in all
retail commercial leases. Any variance kom
these standards shall require
an Administrative Modification to the approved PUD and shall be noticed
to Riverside Avondale Preservation, Inc.
by certified mail.
And wow, RAP's reach is extensive...why the hell should they care about Ortega Village?? It's basically out of the historic distric and is far from historic itself - this is pretty extreme that they are a governing authority in any way for this section of the overlay.
Anyone else catch the glaring errors/vaguery here?
Quote1.
Permitted uses and structures.
b.
Service
establishments such as barber and beauty shops, shoe repair shops,
restaurants, interior decorators, health clubs and gymnasiums, travel
agencies, dry cleaners, home equipment rental and similar uses.
c.
Banks, savings and loans, and other financial institutions and similar uses,
including walk-up ATM
facilities.
d.
All types of professional and business offices.
2.
Prohibited uses. Any and all forms
of drive-thru
facilities, including but not
limited to drug stores, financial
institutions, dry cleaners, and restaurants, shall be
strictly prohibited.
Ortega Landing is a piece of sh!t building and the epitome of the shoddy condo construction of the boom.
I'm well aware what the plans were (I had to move to the marina next door). They had problems when the market was good, which is saying something.
And yes, that thing was constructed using cheap crap.
VillaRiva highrise is the local luxury condo success story (the townhomes not so much I don't think). The Old San Jose development also ended up stalled and is now proceeding with caution. The other luxury projects proposed or at one point UC in the Beauclerc area stalled. I wish them luck - luxury seems to have been difficult in Jax outside of the beaches (where they also still ran into trouble), and luxury rentals are still pretty green/foreign to the market (@ 1,700 SF on avg per unit this just screams condo conversion, though...I'm going to consider these rent to own units I think, condos for all intents and purposes).
Simms, the info you're quoting comes from the 2006 PUD, not from what is being proposed now. Look at Trixie's original post to see the 2013 request--up to 350 units, with average s.f. in the 900s. The developer wants to (more than) double the size of what was approved before.
Quote from: simms3 on May 01, 2013, 10:58:16 PM
So it appears the residential will be 166 units. Good (I doubt the site/demand could support more). Averaging 1,700 SF (screams condo conversion to me...there is talk of an HOA, which will likely be paid for by landlord of apartments...does that get passed through?, and commercial tenants)
Developer to help pay for dredging Fishweir Creek ($800K) and install off-site lanscape (does that mean city ROW as depicted in rendering?). HOA to maintain landscape (well of course, who else is going to - the city of Jax? LoL).
Greater of 8 or 20% of constructed slips to be reserved for public (good).
All sounds fair to me :)
FYI
Quote5.
Maximum height of structures.
The existing Commander Tower (which is 17-
stories tall) will be replaced with a new condominium high-rise (the tallest portion
of which--located on the southwest portion of the Commander parcel--will be 17-
stories tall [approximately 185 feet in height above grade around the building
footprint]). The waterfront "wing" of the building (facing South) will step down
in height to 15 stories [approximately 165 feet in height] and then to 13 stories
[approximately 145 feet in height]. The waterfront wing of the building will also
include a series of 4-story townhomes [approximately 60 feet in height] in front
of the towers, thereby offsetting the height and scale of the taller buildings. The 4-
story townhomes will also be located along the eastern edge of the parcel, along
the waterfront, as well as along the western "wing" of the building. The western
wing of the building will step down in height to 14 stories [approximately 155
feet in height], then to 11 stories [approximately 125 feet in height], then to 9
stories (approximately 105 feet in height) and then to 3 stories (approximately 45
feet in height).
The remaining structures (on the St. Johns Village parcel) will "step down" in
height toward Herschel Street (five stories and four stories, respectively). A
detailed depiction of the respective heights of the proposed buildings is set forth
in the "Building Height Exhibit" attached hereto as Exhibit "E-3." Any variance
in height by more than 8 feet from that depicted in Exhibit E-3 shall require an
Administrative Modification to the approved PUD. Any variance in height by
more than 20 feet shall require a Minor Modification to the approved PUD.
Here we go with the signs again...
QuoteSigns may be front-lit only. Neon signs and back-lit signs
are prohibited. These sign restrictions shall he included as terms in all
retail commercial leases. Any variance kom
these standards shall require
an Administrative Modification to the approved PUD and shall be noticed
to Riverside Avondale Preservation, Inc.
by certified mail.
And wow, RAP's reach is extensive...why the hell should they care about Ortega Village?? It's basically out of the historic distric and is far from historic itself - this is pretty extreme that they are a governing authority in any way for this section of the overlay.
Anyone else catch the glaring errors/vaguery here?
Quote1.
Permitted uses and structures.
b.
Service
establishments such as barber and beauty shops, shoe repair shops,
restaurants, interior decorators, health clubs and gymnasiums, travel
agencies, dry cleaners, home equipment rental and similar uses.
c.
Banks, savings and loans, and other financial institutions and similar uses,
including walk-up ATM
facilities.
d.
All types of professional and business offices.
2.
Prohibited uses. Any and all forms
of drive-thru
facilities, including but not
limited to drug stores, financial
institutions, dry cleaners, and restaurants, shall be
strictly prohibited.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on May 01, 2013, 11:46:43 PM
(http://cdn.homes.com/cgi-bin/readimage/2057327106)
Is anybody going to Fight for the Commander Apartments? I like this old building I feel it's getting a bum rap. >:(
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif)
QuoteSimms, the info you're quoting comes from the 2006 PUD, not from what is being proposed now. Look at Trixie's original post to see the 2013 request--up to 350 units, with average s.f. in the 900s. The developer wants to (more than) double the size of what was approved before.
With all due respect Jean(and I do highlight the word respect), I think the overall scale has the possibility to be immensly more compatiable with the neighborhood under the newest proposal versus the previous plan. That being said, why rally everyone to oppose something that doesn't even have a site plan or completed PUD application yet? Why not wait to see how the actual plans fit into the context of the neighborhood first before bemoaning about how much this project will damage the neighborhood?
Not too long ago, that site had a Winn Dixie and a Penny Burger... so in context, the site has always had an auto-intensive use. A mixed use development (with public waterfront access) that contributes to the walkable characteristics of the neighborhood is certainly better than a large tower surrounded by surface parking along the riverfront and a strip mall with more surface parking fronting the main thoroughfare (or large grocery store with surface parking along the street and river, which was a previous use).
I urge everyone to be fair and let the process unfold a little further before reacting.
I do believe the neighborhood is open to seeing what Balanky proposes; after all, many of us worked with him back in 2006 to find a workable project that the neighborhood could support. What emerged in 2006--after much blood, sweat and tears, I can promise you--was a project that most of us got behind.
In my last post, I was simply trying to clarify for Simms that his assessment of the project--and I always appreciate reading his posts, because he's so knowledgeable in these matters--appears to have been based on the 2006 PUD that Diane posted, rather than the 2013 proposal. Until the developer provides more specificity, all we really have to go on is the written description in the PUD application dated March 21, 2013, which asks for 350 units, a maximum tower height of 170 feet (same height the Commander is now), a maximum village parcel height of 80 feet, and a minimum of 560 parking spaces. I don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.
QuoteI don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.
It would be very odd if the developer didnt figure out what the max would be and work back a site plan from there(that's just as much of a financial concern as it is a form-based concern, probably more so). That's my main point, the due dilligence is the same whether the end product is contextually sensitive to the qualities the neighborhood values or not. Additionally, the deadlines for the PUD application (should be changed) aligned in such a way that the process is unfolding as it is now (the alternative would have cut out virtually any public participation). Having someone in Planning going around telling the neighborhood that 600k sq ft of residential and 150k sq ft of commercial on the same lot (without any real context as to what that means) stirs up a prejudiced bias and is not fair (nor ethical). All that does is poke a hornet's nest with a stick (I learned that painful lesson as a kid). No one benefits in that situation.
In the past month, I've heard from several people that are fuming mad about this potential use of the property... and nearly every one of their concerns are not based on accurate information. It's even more curious because people are quoting very specific information about the project, yet a site plan has not been submitted. That is a big problem if the source of that misinformation is immenating from Planning. That does not create a level playing field for anyone (no matter what good intentions the parties may feel they have).
I very much appreciate the process. The end result should be benficial to the neighborhood (and our community at large). I have not formed an opinion yet, b/c as you point out... there is an absence of specificity at this time. I personally like and respect most everyone involved in the neighborhood and the development team on this matter, but a familiar trend is happening that I have a big problem with (no matter my personal opinion of any one person).
Speculation by development nimbys is entertaining. Hey I have a idea Lets wait to see the details!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shocking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Grimms! I saw that PUD and incorrectly interpreted the person's post as outlining the current PUD - my bad.
Couldn't agree more about needing a site plan before forming an opinion. Once an opinion is formed it often becomes a line in the sand. Results in an I feel this project is bad(or good) so I do not need to listen to anymore details. Some just won't consider anything else for prides sake after having stated an opinion( we have all experienced that watching posters on this site).
When we get a site plan lets start a new thread and give everyone a chance to hit the reset button if they chose.
What is the over/under on attendance for Monday's meeting? Also, what is the over/under on those who will have already made up their minds before hearing/reading a single word of fact from the developers?
Quote from: fieldafm on May 02, 2013, 09:30:26 AM
QuoteI don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.
It would be very odd if the developer didnt figure out what the max would be and work back a site plan from there(that's just as much of a financial concern as it is a form-based concern, probably more so). That's my main point, the due dilligence is the same whether the end product is contextually sensitive to the qualities the neighborhood values or not. Additionally, the deadlines for the PUD application (should be changed) aligned in such a way that the process is unfolding as it is now (the alternative would have cut out virtually any public participation). Having someone in Planning going around telling the neighborhood that 600k sq ft of residential and 150k sq ft of commercial on the same lot (without any real context as to what that means) stirs up a prejudiced bias and is not fair (nor ethical). All that does is poke a hornet's nest with a stick (I learned that painful lesson as a kid). No one benefits in that situation.
In the past month, I've heard from several people that are fuming mad about this potential use of the property... and nearly every one of their concerns are not based on accurate information. It's even more curious because people are quoting very specific information about the project, yet a site plan has not been submitted. That is a big problem if the source of that misinformation is immenating from Planning. That does not create a level playing field for anyone (no matter what good intentions the parties may feel they have).
I very much appreciate the process. The end result should be benficial to the neighborhood (and our community at large). I have not formed an opinion yet, b/c as you point out... there is an absence of specificity at this time. I personally like and respect most everyone involved in the neighborhood and the development team on this matter, but a familiar trend is happening that I have a big problem with (no matter my personal opinion of any one person).
Agree 100% with Mike.
I wonder why we have not heard from "Trixie" in a while...
This was just posted on the website for the Resident News: www.residentnews.com
I think it has some new information about the new PUD in it. There is a PDF line in the article that is supposed to be the preliminary plan for the new PUD, but I cannot get it to download and display. I've had problems with Adobe Reader recently which may be the reason.
QuoteChanges proposed for 50-year-old retail center, apartments
Added by SethWilliam on May 1, 2013.
Saved under All Top Stories
3932DupontCircle_Now
The land around the house at 3932 Dupont Circle was considered “country†back in 1913.
Today, the residents live in the shadow of the 17-story Commander Apartments and hope new development isn’t a change for the worse.
New vision for high-density residential complex upsets neighbors
A couple dozen residents attended a public meeting late in the day on Apr. 29 to share their thoughts about a proposed redevelopment of nearly six acres along St. Johns Avenue in Avondale.
At the heart of the issue is a land use amendment that would change the site, where the 99-unit Commander Apartments and the St. Johns Village Center currently stand, from community/general commercial to High Density Residential.
Along with the land use amendment is Companion Zoning Application 353, which addresses the future of the current 99,000 square foot apartment tower and the 43,000 square foot retail center. Both would be demolished to make room for development that would include up to 350 units in a mix of residential as well as office/professional/commercial space and a parking garage.
Attorney Steve Diebenow, representing the developer Michael Balanky, president and CEO of Chase Properties, listened to objections and answered questions for nearly an hour from
area residents who expressed concerns with the scope of the project.
Those concerns ranged from the number of units in the proposed multi-family development to increases in traffic and noise to the potential for more dog owners not willing to pick up after their pets while walking them on nearby neighborhood streets. Michael Fisher, a representative for Fishweir Elementary School, also noted that an influx of families with school age children could not be accommodated in the already at-capacity school.
While Avondale homeowners might logically appear to be the most invested in what could be another development battle for Diebenow, who recently wrapped up a neighborhood fracas on behalf of Mellow Mushroom, residents from Ortega and Riverside also spoke up at the workshop. The opposing side in the Mellow Mushroom development included the Riverside/Avondale Preservation Society and I Love Avondale LLC.
st johns development
St Johns Village Proposal â€" CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PDF
Linda Bremer, a Riverside resident and member of the Sierra Club, asked about the plans for Big Fishweir Creek, noting that the 2005 PUD included a marina. That PUD also had a provision for an $800,000 escrow deposit for dredging the creek.
Diebenow responded that plans for the property include a riverwalk along the southern boundary and a kayak/canoe launch and that the Army Corps of Engineers will determine the actual cost of dredging following a $100,000 study.
Ortega resident Erik Olsen noted that within 1,100 feet of the Commander is an active bald eagle nest with a mated pair that has had successful broods. “This could make it difficult to bring down a building or put another one up,†said Olsen.
Although the property at 4000 St. Johns Avenue is outside of the Riverside/Avondale historic district, it is under the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay. This means that the developer is obligated to follow the requirements in the overlay or address any changes in a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) request.
The current PUD was filed in 2005 with amendments in March 2006. According to Diebenow, there are differences between the 2005 PUD and the new one, primarily the increase from 166 units to 350 and a quadrupling of project scope from 142,317 square feet to 595,000. In addition, another objection to the 2005 PUD was the proposed height of the condominium that would replace the Commander Apartments. The new PUD would propose more multi-family buildings of shorter height, spreading out the density over the site.
Another concern to area residents was the plan for a five-story parking garage, which would be wrapped around by residential units on the river side of the property.
Gayle Granger, who owns a 100-year-old home on the corner of St. Johns Ave. and Dupont Circle, said “If this property is rezoned as HDR, it would be an overuse of the property and cause a lot of congestion and increase the noise factor. That is not right for this neighborhood. A massive development will have a profound effect on the neighborhood.â€
While no one seemed to be in favor of the proposal, several residents did offer a preliminary olive branch.
Thirty-three-year Avondale resident Douglas Coleman noted that this is the third rezoning attempt he’s been through. “We want this done so that it doesn’t negatively impact the neighborhood. But…there’s a bunch of us who will fight you all the way if a five-story, 367-car garage is part of the plan.â€
Kyle Billy, who lives on Glendale Street, said “I’m not against a good development, but all we’ve heard so far is about a 350-unit development. In one location, that seems like too much for this space.â€
“I was thinking it could be a good thing as it [the new plan] would be under the 2008 [Riverside/ Avondale Zoning] Overlay, which limits building to five stories,†said Julie Banks, who has lived under the shadow of the Commander since 1984. She would endorse it if “it was done beautifully and tastefully without the obscene height [proposed in the 2005 PUD].â€
The 2013 PUD would have to be approved by City Council and the Planning Commission. The approval timeline for the new bill includes introduction of the bill to City Council on May 28 with the first City Council public hearing on June 11 and a Planning Commission hearing on June 13, a Council Committee public hearing on June 18 and, finally, a second City Council public hearing on June 25 (all dates subject to change).
District 14 Councilman Jim Love has proactively set up a second meeting between the developer and area residents to keep the momentum going in the direction of positive change. “It’s the right thing to do right now,†said Love.
A townhall meeting with developer Balanky and attorney Diebenow is scheduled for Monday, May 13, 7 p.m. at FSCJ Kent Campus Auditorium to provide a new plan and receive residents’ feedback. Be sure to check for updates at www.residentnews.net, and send comments or concerns that you would like to share with the community about this development to
editor@residentnews.net.
By Kate A. Hallock
Resident Community News
There are some site plan drawings in the article that don't come through with the quote above.
The square footage figures are confirmed here.
The PDF is just a bigger version of this image.
(http://residentnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/st-johns-development.jpg)
OK it does list 545 garage parking spaces, 15 surface spaces and 350 units. Average unit size 950sq ft.
I would like to see the board walk continuous from the kayak launch to the bridge and stairs to the sidewalk near the bridge. I know they are going to want some private river access but I think we should maximize the public use.
Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?
It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact. 360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####. Retail store = #### trips per day. Beauty salon = #### trips per day. Supermarket = #### trips per day.
Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity. I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.
Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 02, 2013, 12:10:50 PM
Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?
It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact. 360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####. Retail store = #### trips per day. Beauty salon = #### trips per day. Supermarket = #### trips per day.
Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity. I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.
Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.
We are looking at all of this information in the site design and will be presenting it at the May 13th meeting. One of the reasons I haven't chimed in on this conversation yet is because I am working for Mr. Balanky as the civil engineer for the project (another is that I try to stay out of Riverside-Avondale zoning/landuse issues - having enough to keep me busy in San Marco).
I can't give any specific information about the development because it hasn't been decided. The last thing I want to do is provide false or misleading information about this project. As many have stated on this thread, we really need to create a more detailed plan for everyone to weigh in on.
One thing I can say confidently is that I wouldn't be working on this project if I thought it was going to result in a suburban style development that was out of context with the neighborhood. I've known (and consulted for) Mike Balanky for the past 9 years. Together we did the San Marco Place condominiums (won the ULI award for excellence) and the Kings Avenue Station (hotel). This should give everyone some idea of the quality he puts into his work.
I am enjoying following the thread and will continue to do so. Keep the great suggestions coming!
Sorry - I may have missed - how tall is the main tower (by the launch)?
Quote from: blizz01 on May 02, 2013, 01:02:14 PM
Sorry - I may have missed - how tall is the main tower (by the launch)?
That is the only building on the PDF that does not list how many stories tall it is the other buildings are 5 and 3 stories.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 02, 2013, 12:10:50 PM
Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?
It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact. 360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####. Retail store = #### trips per day. Beauty salon = #### trips per day. Supermarket = #### trips per day.
Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity. I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.
Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.
PM peak hour trip rates for an apartment building are .62 trips per unit. That being said, at this point it is not appropriate to calculate any trips off of the number of units because we don't know how many units there will be. The 350 number is a maximum. Once the actual number of apartment units and retail square footage is determined would be the time to do such analysis. I am sure that a traffic study will be performed as part of this.
This is what was behind the PDF link on Resident News.
It gives the units and parking spaces in the white box on the left.
(http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd256/dellwooddaisy/StJohns002.jpg)
It says "public walk to kayak launch." Where is the launch and parking for said launch?
Quote from: fieldafm on May 01, 2013, 10:22:11 PM
It is BEYOND unethical for employees of Planning to be spreading innuendo about development plans that haven't even been completed yet. That's a serious problem.
This has been addressed.
Quote
And wow, RAP's reach is extensive...why the hell should they care about Ortega Village?? It's basically out of the historic distric and is far from historic itself - this is pretty extreme that they are a governing authority in any way for this section of the overlay.
This project is indeed out of RAP's purview with regard to the historic district they are responsible for. However they have weighed in with regard to the project. Keep in mind that even if the organization can only remark upon this project, many of the members are Avondale residents and as such can weigh in on any aspect of this plan based upon that fact alone and weigh in they likely will. ;)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on May 02, 2013, 02:58:43 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on May 01, 2013, 10:22:11 PM
It is BEYOND unethical for employees of Planning to be spreading innuendo about development plans that haven't even been completed yet. That's a serious problem.
This has been addressed.
How so?
Quote from: fieldafm on May 02, 2013, 09:30:26 AM
QuoteI don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.
It would be very odd if the developer didnt figure out what the max would be and work back a site plan from there(that's just as much of a financial concern as it is a form-based concern, probably more so). That's my main point, the due dilligence is the same whether the end product is contextually sensitive to the qualities the neighborhood values or not. Additionally, the deadlines for the PUD application (should be changed) aligned in such a way that the process is unfolding as it is now (the alternative would have cut out virtually any public participation). Having someone in Planning going around telling the neighborhood that 600k sq ft of residential and 150k sq ft of commercial on the same lot (without any real context as to what that means) stirs up a prejudiced bias and is not fair (nor ethical). All that does is poke a hornet's nest with a stick (I learned that painful lesson as a kid). No one benefits in that situation.
In the past month, I've heard from several people that are fuming mad about this potential use of the property... and nearly every one of their concerns are not based on accurate information. It's even more curious because people are quoting very specific information about the project, yet a site plan has not been submitted. That is a big problem if the source of that misinformation is immenating from Planning. That does not create a level playing field for anyone (no matter what good intentions the parties may feel they have).
I very much appreciate the process. The end result should be benficial to the neighborhood (and our community at large). I have not formed an opinion yet, b/c as you point out... there is an absence of specificity at this time. I personally like and respect most everyone involved in the neighborhood and the development team on this matter, but a familiar trend is happening that I have a big problem with (no matter my personal opinion of any one person).
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 02, 2013, 10:29:21 AM
Couldn't agree more about needing a site plan before forming an opinion. Once an opinion is formed it often becomes a line in the sand. Results in an I feel this project is bad(or good) so I do not need to listen to anymore details. Some just won't consider anything else for prides sake after having stated an opinion( we have all experienced that watching posters on this site).
When we get a site plan lets start a new thread and give everyone a chance to hit the reset button if they chose.
Exactly. This is what everyone needs to wait on and then decide what they think about the project. My thoughts on this are in line with Mike's in that at first blush this looks like an opportunity to improve upon what is currently on the site. The old apartment building isn't historically valuable and really not attractive to my eye. My only concern surrounding that structure is if anything will be done to help facilitate the moving of current tenants, especially older folks or those with limited funds. The retail space has never been anything special either in my opinion.
I am open to change here. My concerns will fall along the lines of traffic impact, height of structure with some attention to pedestrian friendly ideas as well as water access to public of course the desirability of that will depend upon what happens with Fishweir dredging. I would want to see the areas of the project facing St. John's Avenue be attractive and well landscaped. As already stated, we will know more at the meeting on May 13th.
On another note, it was a good idea of Jim Love to set up this meeting (which was not required) in order to allow residents into the loop of the conversation. All concerns are valid concerns if they are based in factual information as opposed to speculation. So my hope is that everyone remains open minded until we know more in the way of actual facts and see a site plan. :)
Quote from: MEGATRON on May 02, 2013, 03:20:57 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on May 02, 2013, 02:58:43 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on May 01, 2013, 10:22:11 PM
It is BEYOND unethical for employees of Planning to be spreading innuendo about development plans that haven't even been completed yet. That's a serious problem.
This has been addressed.
How so?
When a person is being paid using tax dollars to work for the city, the expectation is that while in that position, they will process any requests, documentation etc. coming through their department without prejudice as they are there to represent all citizens equally. That is one consideration. Another would be if the employee was using work time to post personal opinions about a project which is not appropriate given that they are working on the taxpayers time. Independently, a city employee as a citizen or any citizen can speak out personally on any issue that they have an opinion about as long as it isn't on city time and if they are willing to risk push back in their jobs or from city officials which happens a lot.
Quote from: KEGreene1 on May 02, 2013, 10:30:39 AM
What is the over/under on attendance for Monday's meeting? Also, what is the over/under on those who will have already made up their minds before hearing/reading a single word of fact from the developers?
Not sure about the first question but regarding the second you can rest assured that some who don't want change of any sort, don't care what the developer has to say but simply don't want to deal with any disruption or construction inconvenience to their community. Of course that is not what one could begin to consider a concerned citizen in my view, just a nimby for the sake of being a nimby. lol
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 02, 2013, 12:10:50 PM
Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?
It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact. 360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####. Retail store = #### trips per day. Beauty salon = #### trips per day. Supermarket = #### trips per day.
Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity. I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.
Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.
This goes to what is required in the bill 2005-1330, which says the developer must submit a traffic (trip generator) report. That has not been done but it is my understanding is expected by planning in the revised PUD request.
Quote from: dougskiles on May 02, 2013, 12:56:53 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 02, 2013, 12:10:50 PM
Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?
It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact. 360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####. Retail store = #### trips per day. Beauty salon = #### trips per day. Supermarket = #### trips per day.
Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity. I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.
Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.
We are looking at all of this information in the site design and will be presenting it at the May 13th meeting. One of the reasons I haven't chimed in on this conversation yet is because I am working for Mr. Balanky as the civil engineer for the project (another is that I try to stay out of Riverside-Avondale zoning/landuse issues - having enough to keep me busy in San Marco).
I can't give any specific information about the development because it hasn't been decided. The last thing I want to do is provide false or misleading information about this project. As many have stated on this thread, we really need to create a more detailed plan for everyone to weigh in on.
One thing I can say confidently is that I wouldn't be working on this project if I thought it was going to result in a suburban style development that was out of context with the neighborhood. I've known (and consulted for) Mike Balanky for the past 9 years. Together we did the San Marco Place condominiums (won the ULI award for excellence) and the Kings Avenue Station (hotel). This should give everyone some idea of the quality he puts into his work.
I am enjoying following the thread and will continue to do so. Keep the great suggestions coming!
Exactly. Commentary based in fact is what is needed.
I read somewhere that roundabouts will now need 100 ft diameter, unless at a street end (60ft.)
Referencing the curbs at the flower shop, animal clinic, and 4000 St.Johns near Loop and Hugo's, would a roundabout fit? Would a 100ft traffic circle intersect Geraldine Dr. AND allow vehicular movements at a parking structure?
Quote from: Spence on May 02, 2013, 08:00:33 PM
I read somewhere that roundabouts will now need 100 ft diameter, unless at a street end (60ft.)
Referencing the curbs at the flower shop, animal clinic, and 4000 St.Johns near Loop and Hugo's, would a roundabout fit? Would a 100ft traffic circle intersect Geraldine Dr. AND allow vehicular movements at a parking structure?
There is no complete and updated PUD with plans in the city planning department yet. So what you are asking for is an answer that would be speculation at this point. Your question will best be answered after the formal application and plans have been received by the planning department. :)
Quote from: Spence on May 02, 2013, 08:00:33 PM
I read somewhere that roundabouts will now need 100 ft diameter, unless at a street end (60ft.)
Referencing the curbs at the flower shop, animal clinic, and 4000 St.Johns near Loop and Hugo's, would a roundabout fit? Would a 100ft traffic circle intersect Geraldine Dr. AND allow vehicular movements at a parking structure?
You sure you aren't Trixie?
[/quote]There is no complete and updated PUD with plans in the city planning department yet. So what you are asking for is an answer that would be speculation at this point. Your question will best be answered after the formal application and plans have been received by the planning department. :)
[/quote]
True.
Also, as enthusiastic neighbors and potential residents+/ tenants of the subject development we can tap into the expertise of fellow posters on this forum and speculate, hope and dream all we like.
Based upon precedent, a traffic circle can be created with some minimal loss of use at 4000 St.Johns.
I am wondering what this audience thinks about the placement of a parking structure and the alignment of Geraldine Dr.
>fieldafm. No. Not Trixie.
Currently, Geraldine Dr. does not technically intersect St.Johns Ave.
Personally I feel a traffic circle is the element the development could use to benefit from the reduced automobile speed and the positive impact such a design feature can deliver to creating a special, unique sense of place.
Just asking for opinions, thoughts, ideas in advance, nothing more.
Riverside Crabtree Manor is a somewhat tucked away little pocket without much thru traffic, almost like Pinegrove near Azalea, excepting school buses.
The Herschel animal clinic will possibly not occupy the space forever and the building too may be replaced.
I guess the nuts and bolts of my original question regarding a traffic circle begin with what to place in the center.
A water feature?
A monument?
Statuary?
Certainly not signage.
We already have brick clad entryway markers.
Since I am apparently having this conversation with myself I will toss out an idea.
NOT a faux lighthouse.
Please.
Chime in.
Start with what we don't wish to see?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on May 01, 2013, 07:50:46 PM
cont.
19.
Marina and docks. Any marina or docks shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Jacksonville and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Minor or major boat repairs, as well as
the sale and storage of fuel products, shall be strictly prohibited. A maximum of
eight (8) boat slips, or no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total number of
slips (whichever is less), shall he reserved for public access. The boardwalk shall
accommodate boat access and docking.
E.
Dredging
Prior to commencement of any construction activities for the proposed
development, the developer shall deposit $800,000into an interest-bearing escrow
account for the costs associated with dredging Fishweir
Creek. The precise terms
of this requirement shall be set forth in a separate agreement with the City to
govern the details of this transaction, including draw requests
J.
Sidewalks, Trails and Bikeways. Sidewalks will be provided along all street
frontages. A public boardwalk will be provided along Fishweir
Creek, up to the
southwest boundary of the Commander parcel. Unfettered public access shall be
provided to and from said boardwalk from Herschel Street and at least one
perpendicular access point from St. Johns Avenue, as more fully depicted on the
conceptual site plan attached hereto. The location of all sidewalks, boardwalk and
public access is conceptual and final sidewalk plans are subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning and Development
Department.
Dredging-Has anyone contacted Don Redman and the status of the Pottsberg Creek dredge that is being sought using FIND? Our ad valorem property tax money. Next Waterways Commission meeting 11 days out. Will this project come before Waterway
J. A Public boardwalk along Fishweir Creek. In the past and this is just a suggestion but I've heard of SAV (Submerged Aquatic Vegatation) Transparent boards that would allow sunlight to pass to provide for a sustainable ecosystem under what normally would be a covered deck. Will this project come before Waterways?
19. marina and docks- Could this project have a small craft launch like the example of Guanna where a motor of 9.9 or less can only be used? Right now there is a strong opportunity for the inclusion of a Boat Ramp Master Plan that could be included in the upcoming 2013 FIND grant package that will require a full Jacksonville city council resolution. Will this project come before Waterways?
JEA and Utilities. Have any of these huge new project announcements and not just picking on this one but on Riverside as well and anywhere else throughout the city using water reuse? Just finished VISION 2025 and was at the Clean and Green table the Environment. (Environmental Ethics?) Vince Seibold. Will this project come before Waterways?
Looking at the aerial view and enduring the weather these past two days, it occurs to me that storm water retention is going to be quite an engineering challenge on this site. It's pretty crowded with impermeable surfaces.
I think all of the storm water retention ponds in North Florida are being challenged right now. Keep looking for animals walking two by two.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2013, 08:23:12 AM
Looking at the aerial view and enduring the weather these past two days, it occurs to me that storm water retention is going to be quite an engineering challenge on this site. It's pretty crowded with impermeable surfaces.
I think all of the storm water retention ponds in North Florida are being challenged right now. Keep looking for animals walking two by two.
We get it. You don't want the project.
To be honest, a new project most likely could help the storm water situation and health of the adjacent waterways. Those surface parking lots sitting there today are probably runoff nightmares.
Megatron, Just because I have concerns and think that there are engineering challenges doesn't mean I'm against the project. There are going to be engineering challenges because of the soil too. There's not enough information out there to decide one way or the other. I'm certainly not in love with what is there now.
Also it was probably all built before storm water retention requirements were put in place and everything just dumps into the river right now. A change in that would certainly be an improvement over the existing.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 03, 2013, 10:47:20 AM
To be honest, a new project most likely could help the storm water situation and health of the adjacent waterways. Those surface parking lots sitting there today are probably runoff nightmares.
Exactly, see my previous comments:
QuoteThis would eliminate the large swaths of surface parking along the waterfront (especially behind the existing Commander building), which would be better for Fishweir Creek. And seeing as though Balanky is involved, I'd also be willing to guess that runoff from the site would also be reduced from some kind of natural effluent method.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2013, 10:52:05 AM
Megatron, Just because I have concerns and think that there are engineering challenges doesn't mean I'm against the project. There are going to be engineering challenges because of the soil too. There's not enough information out there to decide one way or the other. I'm certainly not in love with what is there now.
Also it was probably all built before storm water retention requirements were put in place and everything just dumps into the river right now. A change in that would certainly be an improvement over the existing.
Many, including myself, have concerns and are waiting to hear more, but I am excited about the potential for that area to be re-born. However, when you start the discussion with "
huge new development proposed," I think its safe to say you are firmly against the project even without hearing the details. Don't try and backtrack now.
You are getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions, Megatron. 99 units to 350 units and 600,000 sq. ft. factually qualifies as a "huge" increase and thread headings are always calculated to attract attention.
I am not "firmly" against the project. Like you, I do have concerns about it and want it to be a plus for the neighborhood and the creek, not a negative. I take the position of wanting the developers in general to prove that they are going to do something right because they have so frequently screwed things up in their pursuit of every last penny.
It is very encouraging to me that the owners of this particular property are the ones who want it redeveloped and that it is not being flipped to make a quick buck. They are obviously long-term investors looking for positive cash flow and appreciating value. They have already owned it for a long time. We still need to hold their feet to the fire to make this work for everyone and that every aspect of the impact is examined carefully.
Quote from: Dog Walker on May 03, 2013, 05:18:48 PM
You are getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions, Megatron. 99 units to 350 units and 600,000 sq. ft. factually qualifies as a "huge" increase and thread headings are always calculated to attract attention.
I am not "firmly" against the project. Like you, I do have concerns about it and want it to be a plus for the neighborhood and the creek, not a negative. I take the position of wanting the developers in general to prove that they are going to do something right because they have so frequently screwed things up in their pursuit of every last penny.
It is very encouraging to me that the owners of this particular property are the ones who want it redeveloped and that it is not being flipped to make a quick buck. They are obviously long-term investors looking for positive cash flow and appreciating value. They have already owned it for a long time. We still need to hold their feet to the fire to make this work for everyone and that every aspect of the impact is examined carefully.
Dog Walker, The numbers you keep using are incorrect. What you have been sharing are figures regarding what would be allowable on the site, but not what the developer plans on building. There is and has been no plan on the table to build out 600,000 sq ft., in fact some heads have been shaking in disbelief over the repeated use of this number. Nor is there a plan to "actually" build out 350 apartments and 42,000 sq ft of retail. My guess is that they are asking for the max now while the approval process is ongoing rather than go through another entire process down the road should other expansions be undertaken. I have vetted the 600k number and have it confirmed as incorrect first hand via city planning. :) See the article below which features the developers words as well.
QuoteTU
The application to the city calls for 350 apartments and 42,000 square feet of retail space -- but Mike Balanky, the developer behind plans to tear down the Commander Apartments and St. Johns Village on Fishweir Creek and build something new, said those are what the city allows, not what will end up on the site.
“Even if we could do that,†he said, “we wouldn’t.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2013-04-29/story/st-johns-avenue-development-raises-concerns-among-neighbors#ixzz2SGos0ipi
The best way for the developer to allay the fears of 350 units and 42,000 square feet of retail, is to come forward with an application with numbers matching what they intend to build. Applying for the max with an "assurance" they don't really want that much does not lead to high levels of confidence from the folks living around the development. Unfortunately, the bad actors in the Development Industry has made the phrase "trust us" meaningless, which hurts honest developers.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on May 03, 2013, 06:52:41 PM
The best way for the developer to allay the fears of 350 units and 42,000 square feet of retail, is to come forward with an application with numbers matching what they intend to build. Applying for the max with an "assurance" they don't really want that much does not lead to high levels of confidence from the folks living around the development. Unfortunately, the bad actors in the Development Industry has made the phrase "trust us" meaningless, which hurts honest developers.
That's true Charles but any business person who has navigated the hurdles of this type of project in the past knows that the prudent course of action is to ask for what is allowable under current building standards, overlays etc.. This seems to be precisely what the developer is doing with this PUD request. Going at this piece meal or submitting or changing plans in order to quell nimby fears at this stage isn't a wise business decision. It is understood in advance by anyone undertaking such an enterprise that dealing with the concerns of the public and the legislators that represent them is best done step by step as issues arise.
My point is that the developer at this stage has got to meet the requirements of ordinance during this process in order to get his PUD request approved. If he lawfully and accurately meets the requests and requirements of the planning department officials then there is no valid reason to refuse this PUD request. At this stage I would guess that the developer wants the process to go as smoothly as possible. As such he and his rep's will likely listen to and respond to citizens concerns as they come up over time, but the planning department is who they need approval from right now and that is likely where their attention will be focused.
I just want to make clear that I have no direct financial or other interest in this project at this time... in the spirit of full disclosure. I am however a: neighbor, former resident of the Commander and an advocate for the neighborhood. I was asked to clarify that today.
Quote from: fieldafm on May 04, 2013, 12:04:14 AM
I just want to make clear that I have no direct financial or other interest in this project at this time... in the spirit of full disclosure. I am however a: neighbor, former resident of the Commander and an advocate for the neighborhood. I was asked to clarify that today.
I just want to make it clear that I will oppose this project if the plan does not involve adult entertainment.
Without regard to the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay, which governs the property in question, when is it appropriate on any property to "in fill" a more suburban residential neighborhood, that has but a smattering of commercial, and place a maximum high density residential and commercial mixed use development on the property? And, if one "in fills" what is the best density for the "in fill", taking into consideration the current state of the surrounding areas, including the various environmental issues, road configurations, traffic concerns, surrounding schools, safety, etc. Do you go for a goal of maxing out the use of the area in which you plop down the new development, such that you crush the relatively gentle uses of the surrounding areas? Or, isn't there an option for having the vibrancy that is offered by a residential/mixed use development "in fill" and tempering it by a just consideration of the rights and safety of the surrounding property owners?
I hope the "soon to be released" proposed PUD for the St. Johns Village Center has a lesser maximum density than 350 residential units for the 5.86 acre site, which is not to say I am "anti-development". I would consider supporting redevelopment of the St. Johns Village Center site with a mixed use project, if the maximum residential density stated in the PUD was more in keeping with the density of the Riverside/Avondale neighborhood in which the proposed development would sit and if the maximum specs of the building(s), such as the height, setbacks, etc., are in compliance with the mandates of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay. So, what numbers do I think are appropriate as the maximum numbers in this PUD? I am not sure. I am trying to sort that out. There are some interesting discussions here regarding the same. I have appreciated your insights. This conundrum is more in keeping with the tension between suburban versus urban, rather than just a mere "nimby" issue.
And, while certainly the design of the proposed redevelopment (the "St. Johns Village") will greatly impact how the development appears on the site and "fits in" with the neighborhood in a visual sense, the density is based on the number of residents, without regard to the details of the structures within which they are housed. 350 residential units is too dense a development for this site.
If in fact the developer never intends to build 350 residential units on the site, then he should not state that figure as his maximum number of residential units in his "soon to be released" proposed PUD.
Quote from: Trixie on May 04, 2013, 03:52:19 PM
Without regard to the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay, which governs the property in question, when is it appropriate on any property to "in fill" a more suburban residential neighborhood, that has but a smattering of commercial, and place a maximum high density residential and commercial mixed use development on the property? And, if one "in fills" what is the best density for the "in fill", taking into consideration the current state of the surrounding areas, including the various environmental issues, road configurations, traffic concerns, surrounding schools, safety, etc. Do you go for a goal of maxing out the use of the area in which you plop down the new development, such that you crush the relatively gentle uses of the surrounding areas? Or, isn't there an option for having the vibrancy that is offered by a residential/mixed use development "in fill" and tempering it by a just consideration of the rights and safety of the surrounding property owners?
I hope the "soon to be released" proposed PUD for the St. Johns Village Center has a lesser maximum density than 350 residential units for the 5.86 acre site, which is not to say I am "anti-development". I would consider supporting redevelopment of the St. Johns Village Center site with a mixed use project, if the maximum residential density stated in the PUD was more in keeping with the density of the Riverside/Avondale neighborhood in which the proposed development would sit and if the maximum specs of the building(s), such as the height, setbacks, etc., are in compliance with the mandates of the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Overlay. So, what numbers do I think are appropriate as the maximum numbers in this PUD? I am not sure. I am trying to sort that out. There are some interesting discussions here regarding the same. I have appreciated your insights. This conundrum is more in keeping with the tension between suburban versus urban, rather than just a mere "nimby" issue.
And, while certainly the design of the proposed redevelopment (the "St. Johns Village") will greatly impact how the development appears on the site and "fits in" with the neighborhood in a visual sense, the density is based on the number of residents, without regard to the details of the structures within which they are housed. 350 residential units is too dense a development for this site.
If in fact the developer never intends to build 350 residential units on the site, then he should not state that figure as his maximum number of residential units in his "soon to be released" proposed PUD.
I've thrown quite a few dollar bills at broads named Trixie.
QuoteTrixie If in fact the developer never intends to build 350 residential units on the site, then he should not state that figure as his maximum number of residential units in his "soon to be released" proposed PUD.
You make this statement based upon what? Your own view of what an investor and developer should do with their property, money and paid professionals working to get their own property approved, not just for today's development but what might be done later? lol Keep in mind I know the person and personality behind Trixie and do understand the line of thinking behind the statement, but what is not being understood or respected is that the investor and property owner can conduct their business as they see fit and in a way that makes their own investments stronger. So to state how they should handle their own PUD application is a bit much. It appears this investor is planning ahead as would any good business person.
It comes down to this. In spite of what any outsider "thinks" a person should do regarding their own business plan and how they choose to word it, is no ones business but their own. As it stands, the developer did say on record in the TU article that they do not intend to build out to the maximum stated in the PUD. If I were them, I too would put the max allowed by ordinance and overlay into my initial PUD proposal. It makes good business sense. The public of course can have input into the project via their council representatives and during open discussions and forums. What the public cannot do however is tell anyone how to handle their own investments or business process. lol That goes for Avondale, Ortega and Riverside peeps too. No snark intended in my remarks here, just a dose of reality. The PUD will come in and will be approved if all ordinance guidelines are met and this developer will have to deal with site challenges themselves to remain in keeping with the overlay, drainage and the like. The current apartment building is over 5 floors is it not? It is also dated and to my eye unattractive. The current retail area is clumsy with a lousy parking area and access from St. Johns, both in and out. It is my guess that whatever this developer has planned will be far more attractive and functional then what is there. So everyone, relax!
What I don't like seeing is the penchant for resistance and suspicion to the point of making any changes and improvements in Avondale or surrounding areas a royal pain in the backside for whom ever tries to do so. If the traffic concerns and funding to mitigate dredging of the creek are in place according to what the ordinance requires, then everyone ought to sit back and let the process move along and comment when they actually know what the end product is proposed to be. ;)
The PUD application was submitted today. The elevation looks a lot like what was presented in 2005, but with the tower dropped from 185 feet (current PUD) to 170 feet (new PUD application). The density is spread onto the St. John's Village parcel, with two buildings up to 80 feet, and a five-story parking garage. Total requested residential units, 339, versus a total of 350 in the "bootleg" PUD (and compared to a total of 166 units approved in 2005 PUD). Total proposed square footage is still just under 600K, with an 85% lot coverage. Will post more when I see more.
Nothing in today's PUD about funding to mitigate dredging of the creek. 30+ pages, so still reviewing, but it seems to be one of the few alterations in an application that otherwise bears a lot of similarities to what we've seen before. Main difference appears to be the request to change the St. Johns Village parcel from CGC (20 residential units per acre) to HDR (up to 60 units per acre); HDR is the classification presently held by the Commander portion, so they're seeking to expand this land use to the rest of the property.
Kaiser Soze, sorry to report, nothing in the PUD suggest a titty bar. Long live SOS lounge . . . I guess.
merging minds....
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18329.msg327961/topicseen.html#new
AND
full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/2013/05/what-does-avondale-redevelopment.html
want a laugh?
http://www.seniorhousingnet.com/seniorliving-detail/eureka-garden-apartments_4000-st-johns-ave_jacksonville_fl_32205-523453?source=web
a 55+ subsidized assisted living community?
eh...why not.
StMarks episcopal was looking for a patch of dirt upon which to create a similar development.
Could be quite THE thing to "go nuts over"
We shall see.
ANNOUNCEMENT â€" TOWN HALL MEETING TONIGHT
From Jim Love's office:
A TOWN HALL MEETING, hosted by District 14 City Councilman Jim Love, will be held on Monday, May 13, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm, at the FSCJ Kent Campus Auditorium (Park St. & US-17), for the purpose of discussing and gathering public input related to the proposed development and rezoning to PUD at 3946 & 4000 St. Johns Ave., “St. Johns Village†(located near the intersection of St. Johns Ave. and Herschel St.). The developer of this project and his representative, Mr. Steve Diebenow, will make a presentation, answer questions and receive suggestions from the public concerning this project.
Hopefully it will be a productive event. The site needs to be redeveloped.
Let's see if we can
1.hide most of the surface parking.
2. Create great continuous public river access from the Fishweir creek bridge all the way arround the property back to St. John's ave.
3. Ensure a context sensitive facade.
4. Wide sidewalks
5. Bike lanes and racks.
6. Developer help on dredging.
Yes the developer will need to add a good amount of units to pay for the needed project. Go for win-win.
Quote from: grimss on May 13, 2013, 05:02:40 PM
ANNOUNCEMENT â€" TOWN HALL MEETING TONIGHT
From Jim Love's office:
A TOWN HALL MEETING, hosted by District 14 City Councilman Jim Love, will be held on Monday, May 13, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm, at the FSCJ Kent Campus Auditorium (Park St. & US-17), for the purpose of discussing and gathering public input related to the proposed development and rezoning to PUD at 3946 & 4000 St. Johns Ave., “St. Johns Village†(located near the intersection of St. Johns Ave. and Herschel St.). The developer of this project and his representative, Mr. Steve Diebenow, will make a presentation, answer questions and receive suggestions from the public concerning this project.
Grimss, Thanks for the heads up. It was nice to see Councilmembers Anderson and Lumb make the Town Hall meeting in addition to councilman Love hosting it. Just under a 100 people in attendance. The kayak launch will be a positive benefit for everyone to continue to access, promote, celebrate, a Great River which is our St. johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL initiative.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 27, 2013, 02:33:53 PM
Chase Properties owner Michael Balanky has a rezoning proposal submitted to the City to move the Commander Apartments and the adjacent shopping center from CCG to PUD. Chase is the current owner of the property.
He wants to tear down the Commander Apartments and the shopping center which have about 150,000 sq ft of floor space and replace it with a single, mixed-use building with 600,000 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant and high density residential space.
http://maps.coj.net/luzap/SearchLandUsePublic.aspx
Click on "Search Land Use" tab on the side and insert PUD number 2013C-010 to see the status and meeting notices.
The PUD designation is necessary as this is in the Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay area.
I have a PDF of the full application and can PM it to anyone interested as I do not know how to post a PDF file or a link to one in the forum. Advice on how to do this would be greatly appreciated.
I was unable to attend as I was otherwise engaged with a prior obligation, but I would love to know how this meeting and presentation was conducted and received.
Dog Walker, what say you, sir!?
I was at the meeting and thought Balanky had a hard time winning over the audience; unfortunately for him, his AV presentation failed halfway through, and so no one got to see any project renderings. An audio of the town hall can be found here: http://commander-rezoning.com/costs-benefits/. I didn't listen to the full audio so don't know if it captured the entire meeting, but there's a summary of the primary issues discussed as well. Balanky has promised to hold more meetings.
Quote from: grimss on May 23, 2013, 05:20:25 PM
http://commander-rezoning.com/costs-benefits/
Nice website!
FYI, the St. Johns Village Center proposed land use amendment and PUD are on the Agenda for the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 11, 2013. The City Council meeting starts at 5:00 p.m.
Here's a link to the Agenda for the meeting:
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/CurrentYear/Council/88-June-11-13-AGENDA.htm
These matters will be specifically addressed under the "Public Hearings on Land Use Amendments and Certain Companion Rezonings" portion of the meeting.
The City Ordinance numbers for the St. Johns Village Center matters are: a) proposed land use amendment (2013-341) and b) proposed rezoning (2013-342).
2013-341
ORD Adopt Small-Scale Amend to FLUM 2030 Comp Plan on St Johns Ave bet Herschel St & DuPont Cir (3.01± Acres) - CGC to HDR - St Johns Village Center, LLC. (Appl# 2013C-010) (Dist 14-Love) (Reingold) (LUZ)
(Rezoning 3013-342)
LUZ PH 6/18/13
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3187(2), F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 6/11/13 & 6/25/13
2013-342
ORD-Q Rezoning Propty on St Johns Ave bet Herschel St & DuPont Cir (5.97± Acres) - PUD to PUD (Multi-Family Residential, Commercial & Ofc Uses) - St Johns Village Center, LLC. (Dist 14-Love) (Reingold) (LUZ)
(Small Scale 2013-341)
LUZ PH 6/18/13
Public Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 6/11/13 & 6/25/13
* To obtain additional information about each Ordinance listed above, you may open the link by each Ordinance number on the City Council Agenda web-site. (Click on "Bill Details" once you open each item.)
It is my understanding the Applicant said he will seek a deferral regarding these matters once the item is opened on the Agenda.
There will be an opportunity for public comment at the City Council meeting. The public comments made when the Ordinances are specifically addressed during the meeting will become part of the record for these Ordinances.
Thanks, Trixie, for the info.
Quote from: dougskiles on May 23, 2013, 05:44:53 PM
Quote from: grimss on May 23, 2013, 05:20:25 PM
http://commander-rezoning.com/costs-benefits/
Nice website!
Agree. It's clear the developer is being as transparent as possible and wants to keep open lines of communication with neighbors. Perhaps it's a little too early to tar and feather him?
The developer has released new conceptual drawings for the Commander redevelopment, but notes that these, too, are subject to change: http://commander-rezoning.com/2013/07/16/developer-to-present-revised-conceptual-drawings-at-july-17th-meeting/. There will be another town hall meeting this Wedesday at 7pm, FSCJ, Kent campus.
Anxious to see the elevations of the retail portion wrapped around the parking garage.
Looks like ELM is doing pretty good work on the residential side.... I like the proposed facade treatments, clean lines that are modern but not incompatible with historic homes nearby... very complementary to the site lines, flow and form of the home a block away on Greenwood, IMO.
I like the public kayak launch. Looks like there will be a direct path from the sidewalk to the launch site in those renderings.
Would really like the City to address the intersection of Herschel and St Johns. A roundabout would work great to calm traffic traffic and provide a safer atmosphere for pedestrians and cyclists (both things I do through that intersection nearly every day).
Quote from: fieldafm on July 16, 2013, 09:59:11 AM
Anxious to see the elevations of the retail portion wrapped around the parking garage.
From what I understand, the only building that will have retail is the in the middle of the full parcel, and it will be serviced by surface parking in front along St. Johns rather than by a parking garage. (The retail has been reduced to 12,000 s.f.)
The building closest to Herschel will have a ground floor parking garage, topped by two stories of residential. The roof of the garage will be landscaped, although I think that greenspace will be viewable only to building residents, as opposed to pedestrians at street level. As presently designed, both this garage and the 3-story garage on the proposed tower will be open, apparently for ventilation purposes. The 3rd story roof of the proposed tower garage also will be landscaped as some sort of courtyard for residents.
Thanks for your update, grimss:
"The developer has released new conceptual drawings for the Commander redevelopment, but notes that these, too, are subject to change: http://commander-rezoning.com/2013/07/16/developer-to-present-revised-conceptual-drawings-at-july-17th-meeting/. There will be another town hall meeting this Wedesday at 7pm, FSCJ, Kent campus."
Will someone please post page 15 of the developer's new conceptual drawings from the link grimss shared above? It shows the proposed development, with cars on the site, entrances, etc.
And, FYI, there's an article in today's paper about the proposed St. Johns Village redevelopment project:
http://jacksonville.com/business/2013-07-16/story/avondale-project-gets-scrutinized-neighbors
Any idea how many more residential units will be added?
Also, how much more retail square footage will be added?
Quote from: ben says on April 27, 2013, 02:56:49 PM
Commander needs to go. Great news if it pans out.
-1
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on July 17, 2013, 08:56:00 AM
Any idea how many more residential units will be added?
Also, how much more retail square footage will be added?
As of last night's meeting, the present number of units planned is 300 (216 in the proposed tower and the other units spread out between two other three-story buildings). The proposed commercial square footage is now 12,000 s.f. Lot coverage still 85%.
I hope it is built..Looks nice and should add some life to the area. I refuse to believe that anyone thinks The Commander Apts should stay. They are an eye sore.
But will the new building have a bonafide atomic fallout shelter, like the Commander does?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 18, 2013, 10:03:29 PM
But will the new building have a bonafide atomic fallout shelter, like the Commander does?
+1
Do tell more about this fallout shelter...
A friend used to live in the Commander, and says there is a fallout shelter inside. Very solid building - or at least that part of it. I'll try to get more info next time I see him.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 19, 2013, 07:07:20 AM
A friend used to live in the Commander, and says there is a fallout shelter inside. Very solid building - or at least that part of it. I'll try to get more info next time I see him.
I used to live there, and from what I recall.. the 'fallout shelter' sign was next to the staircase and I believe the ground floor of the staircase was considered the 'fallout shelter'. The building itself is concrete block.