Metro Jacksonville

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

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2639622316_rcdwRWP-M.jpg)

In preparation for tonight's Commander redevelopment Town Hall meeting, Metro Jacksonville shares revised conceptual drawings for the Fishweir Creek project.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jul-a-new-look-for-avondales-st-johns-village-project

Welcome to 'The Berkman on Fishweir'.

Quote from: soldiercourse on July 17, 2013, 07:17:57 AM
Welcome to 'The Berkman on Fishweir'.

This looks nothing at all like Berkman.

In fact, it's a compact mixed use development replacing a building that has not been kept up well and an outdated strip mall.

Not sure people really understand what the word 'progress' means.  Nor what the term 'walkable neighborhood' means either. 

I don't get the flat faced building that will be right next to the bridge. the rest looks fine, but that building looks like a parking garage on the property closest to the creek, what am I missing?

From what I can tell, it appears the flat faced building is still in early conceptual design and maybe a result of outside concerns to fear of height and overall density. Personally, I'd like to see more of an interactive/mixed use street edge at that corner. Retail would work better with more street traffic visibility and the interactivity around the green space and creek would make that a great third person type of plaza or space.

Quote from: CG7 on July 17, 2013, 08:30:46 AM
I don't get the flat faced building that will be right next to the bridge. the rest looks fine, but that building looks like a parking garage on the property closest to the creek, what am I missing?

That is a parking garage.  I haven't seen the a more detailed elevation for the garage, but would agree that a parking garage needs to be a little more than a flat faced front with no pedestrian interaction (retail) like some of those parking garages you see downtown.  It would be beneficial for the retail to wrap around the parking garage.  I was under the impression that retail would indeed wrap around the garage.

Quoteinteractivity around the green space and creek would make that a great third person type of plaza or space.

Totally agree.  From what I understood, most of the space along the riverfront would be 'public space'.

That would have a bigger impact impact on the neighborhood than all the aribitrary 'intensity concerns'.

http://jacksonville.com/business/2013-07-16/story/avondale-project-gets-scrutinized-neighbors

Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 08:36:29 AM
From what I can tell, it appears the flat faced building is still in early conceptual design and maybe a result of outside concerns to fear of height and overall density. Personally, I'd like to see more of an interactive/mixed use street edge at that corner. Retail would work better with more street traffic visibility and the interactivity around the green space and creek would make that a great third person type of plaza or space.

Parking will be under the building at St. Johns/Herschel, which is currently proposed for residential use.  I have been told that this blocky look is simply a placeholder for massing study/footprint purposes and building articulation/design is still being worked out. 

It's a challenging site to say the least.

The flat building is simply an unfinished design. It's not going to look like that, according to Balanky and the architect. I think parking will be under each building.

Quote from: fieldafm on July 17, 2013, 08:42:06 AM

Quoteinteractivity around the green space and creek would make that a great third person type of plaza or space.

Totally agree.  From what I understood, most of the space along the riverfront would be 'public space'.

That would have a bigger impact impact on the neighborhood than all the aribitrary 'intensity concerns'.

Agreed.  That public space would be a significant addition to the neighborhood.  If we do ever go through with the proposed dredging that would be a fantastic space available for use by the public.

I think it shows a lot of promise, and will undoubtedly be better than the status quo.

I know it's a challenging site, but personally, I'd like to see a design that better engages the St. Johns Avenue portion of the property. All the proposed buildings are pushed back to the water, which is essentially what we've got there now. I do like the clean-lined, more modern look of the architecture, however.

what's the est time frame on this?

Edit: Ah, I see the TU article states they're hoping to break ground early next year.

The developer would like to break ground in early 2014.

^lol, thanks Lake!

I would like it you could visit the restaurant from the water by boat.  When they dredge the creek a couple of boat slips or just tie ups would be fantastic.  I don't love the surface lot by the street just a bit more of the retail fronting the street would add a lot of pedestrian feel.

QuoteI don't love the surface lot by the street just a bit more of the retail fronting the street would add a lot of pedestrian feel.

I don't mind that so much.  While it would be preferential for the setback to hug the sidewalk I can a) certainly appreciate the desire for potential residents to be closer to the waterfront instead of St Johns b) it appears there will be far less surface parking than the current buildings c) it appears there will be an opening that invites pedestrians to the waterfront area so there are some sight lines preserved of the water (the only sight lines of Fishweir now is the gap caused by the large surface parking lots seperating St Johns Village from the Commander, which isnt necessarily an appealing spectacale).

I think the bigger pressing issue from a design standpoint is how the as-yet undetermined parking garage portion of the development will interact at the pedestrian level. 

Yeah, I'm not crazy about that surface parking lot but it's a challenging site and the opposition from many, makes things a bit more difficult.  I also think the largest issue is the as-yet undetermined parking garage design.  That's a building that can make or break the site and everything surrounding it.  A highly interactive green space/plaza at the intersection could possibly have the ability to spread redevelopment opportunity in the vicinity.

Is the picture beginning this thread of what the view on the street would be or from the water?

^

There are (very difficult to see) docks in that photo, so that would be a view from the water :)

I can never figure out how to insert an image, but the link to a view from St. Johns is here: http://wp.me/a3uUEJ-78

view from the creek:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2639622263_xdTDfGb-M.jpg)

view from St. Johns Avenue:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2639622329_dnqTgmv-M.jpg)

Councilman Jim Love will host a Town Hall / Mediation meeting on Wednesday, July 17th, 2013, to discuss the St. Johns Village project / PUD and site plan (Legislation # 2013-341 & 2013-342).  The meeting location and time have changed. The  meeting will now be held at the FSCJ / Kent Campus Auditorium (Park St. at Blanding Blvd.) from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm. Representatives of the St. Johns Village development, nearby residents, and other interested parties are invited to attend
For more information, please contact:

KEVIN KUZEL
EXEC ASSISTANT
JIM LOVE / CITY COUNCILMAN
JAX-FL / DISTRICT 14
(904) 630-1677
(904) 710-7992 (cell)

http://commander-rezoning.com/2013/06/11/town-hall-meeting-scheduled-for-july-17/

Thanks guys!

Anyone live blogging?

Quote from: fieldafm on July 17, 2013, 08:02:04 AM
Not sure people really understand what the word 'progress' means.

'Progress' meant tearing down the Holiday Inn City Center for the Federal Courthouse, but yet many people bitched about that. I guess that beauty is in the eye of the beholder concerning old buildings.

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 17, 2013, 09:23:15 PM
Anyone live blogging?

I didn't live blog but I did attend most of the meeting.  In short, the crowd, represented by RAP, the neighborhood just north of the Commander and Fishweir, believe the scale of what's shown is too large and dense for the neighborhood.  While praising the development team for working with the community, they'd like the developer work within the confines of what the overlay allows and not attempt to change the site's land use to accommodate higher density.

Issues of concern: 
1. Intensity of the development is too high for the neighborhood.
2. Mass of project makes it impossible to transition to HDR when adjacent to HDR; that's undesirable.
3. Developer wants to change the land use for one-half of the land to the highest density in Duval County, HDR.  There is plenty of HDR land already designated in the county that is undeveloped.  The Comprehensive plan notes that the 74 acres exceed the projected need for HDR land for the next 20 years.  The developer could build on any of some 50 undeveloped but designated HDR parcels that are available.  A number of appropriate sites exist in the city core.
4.  An HDR land use change, according the the comprehensive plan, should be within 1/2 mile of an existing or proposed rapid transit stop.  The land is not within that distance.  Furthermore, the parcel is served by a single 2-lane road with no bicycle lanes  ins the neighborhood.
5. There is little public benefit offered by this proposed development; the kayak launch is pointless without both dredging of the creek to make it navigable, and dedicated parking for vehicles with kayaks with a public access route to/from the launch.
Developer wants a huge land use change, wants an exception to not adhere to the setback rules, wants an exception to the Zoning Overlay to exceed the maximum height (150' vs 60' permitted), wants to dramatically exceed the footprint limits, and wants to drop the $800,000.00 contribution to dredging the creek, without which, the creek is a silted mud flat most of the time.
Let's hope we see something better next round.   

Quote3. Developer wants to change the land use for one-half of the land to the highest density in Duval County, HDR.  There is plenty of HDR land already designated in the county that is undeveloped.  The Comprehensive plan notes that the 74 acres exceed the projected need for HDR land for the next 20 years.  The developer could build on any of some 50 undeveloped but designated HDR parcels that are available.  A number of appropriate sites exist in the city core.

From what I understood last night, the developer is a part of a team where the actual land owner wants to redevelop this particular under utilized parcel they already own.  They're already invested in this property.  Going elsewhere isn't going to resolve the issue of doing something with the Commander/St. Johns Villas site.

With that said, what's the community's vision for that area? Is it a situation of where everyone is fine with status quo or are there desired things that the redevelopment of this property can help deliver to the area?

Quote5. There is little public benefit offered by this proposed development; the kayak launch is pointless without both dredging of the creek to make it navigable, and dedicated parking for vehicles with kayaks with a public access route to/from the launch.

There is the potential for great public benefit.  For Avondale, benefit could be this development being an anchor that pulls the pressure of commercial infill from other areas of heated debate and popularity, like right up the street (Shoppes of Avondale). 

Another potential benefit is better public access to the creek and river, in a neighborhood where most of the waterfront access is private.

Another public benefit is that if this thing is designed right, it could anchor redevelopment of the commercial district along Herschel, south of Fishweir Creek.  However, I guess this could be a pro or con depending on the person and if they desire more commercial development in the area.

QuoteDeveloper wants a huge land use change, wants an exception to not adhere to the setback rules, wants an exception to the Zoning Overlay to exceed the maximum height (150' vs 60' permitted)

I haven't followed this project as much as many of you have but I did like Wayne Wood's suggestion of seeing what could be designed onsite, under the rules of the existing overlay.  I know our comp plan is pretty suburban in nature but it will be good to see what the variation is between what's proposed and what would be allowed if no land use change was given.

I like the development but given the exceptions the developer wants I would hold his feet to the fire on a few things.
Dredging the river
Public access to the riverfront.

Is part of the fear some people have that being new means all of the retail parcels will actually be occupied as opposed to the current state of St. Johns Village? I still haven't found ballmark numbers for how drastic the number of housing units and retail square footage may change over the current situation, even though this is all still up in the air.

Will dredging the creek destroy it as a "bird sanctuary?"

Quote from: Josh on July 18, 2013, 09:25:56 AM
Is part of the fear some people have that being new means all of the retail parcels will actually be occupied as opposed to the current state of St. Johns Village? I still haven't found ballmark numbers for how drastic the number of housing units and retail square footage may change over the current situation, even though this is all still up in the air.

Will dredging the creek destroy it as a "bird sanctuary?"

Although these numbers are likely to change yet again, the current proposal is for 300 residential units (1BR, 2BR and 3BR), 3 buildings (set into one multi-wing tower varying from 7 to 14 stories--max height of 170 feet--and two three-story buildings) and 12,000 s.f. of commercial. That compares to 90 units in the Commander Aparments presently (94% occupied) , and some 45,000 sf of commercial (mix of office space and retail; about 70% occupied).

^ and the general traffic impacts of the new proposal would be equal or even slightly less than existing

Rough daily estimates from ITE (not including interanl capture reduction for interaction of uses)

Current - 600 residential trips + 1900 retail trips = 2500 total
Proposed - 1950 residential trips + 500 retail trips = 2450 total

Quote^ and the general traffic impacts of the new proposal would be equal or even slightly less than existing

Rough daily estimates from ITE

Current - 600 residential trips + 1900 retail trips = 2500 total
Proposed - 1950 residential trips + 500 retail trips = 2450 total

This is the key element missing from all of the arbitrary 'intensity concerns'.

According to how we measure traffic impact, the redevelopment will not have a negative impact on auto trips generated.  The site has always had an auto intensive use (it was a grocery store at one point, think about that in terms of how much auto trips the Riverside Publix generates).  Structured parking and dense, mixed use development (as opposed to what is there now) are key elements in maintaining (and even enhancing in this case) the walkable characterisitcs of the neighborhood.


Now about that roundabout at St Johns/Herschel in order to make the intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists...  If RAP wants to push something really useful, that could be a really big deal.  There is an opportunity to make this intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists(I personally walk/bike it nearly daily).  If it's not done now, it will be decades before such an opportunity arises again.

QuoteThe developer could build on any of some 50 undeveloped but designated HDR parcels that are available.  A number of appropriate sites exist in the city core.

Telling an existing landowner they can't redevelop the property they already own isn't good policy in regards to property rights.  Driving a more dense, compact mixed use development somewhere else isn't good land use policy and certainly is not fiscally responsible for our community.  There is a reason the City has budget problems, and the biggest culprit is land use policy that encourages development that yields ad valorum revenue per acre that is unsustainably low.   

If someone wanted to put a large 200 unit apartment complex along Oak Street behind the Shoppes of Avondale... I would agree that this would be incompatible with the surrounding context.  I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that this site's redevelopment is somehow contextually inappropriate. 

Quoteshould be within 1/2 mile of an existing or proposed rapid transit stop

There aren't any true rapid transit stops in all of Jacksonville.  Matter of fact, this site was part of a streetcar commercial district (ever wonder why Herschel is so wide?).  They ripped that up decades ago. 

I wouldn't call them arbitrary likely uninformed would be a better description. Even though I am for the project I just assumed it would cause heavier traffic.

Lake you were at the meeting yesterday were any traffic figures current and projected used?

Quote from: fieldafm on July 18, 2013, 10:25:50 AM

QuoteNow about that roundabout at St Johns/Herschel in order to make the intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists...  If RAP wants to push something really useful, that could be a really big deal.  There is an opportunity to make this intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists(I personally walk/bike it nearly daily).  If it's not done now, it will be decades before such an opportunity arises again.

A roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

An interesting statement that I learned last night is that, because the developer would get credits for what's already on the site, the proposed new development would not be required to pay any mobility impact fees. Can anyone explain why that's the case? Is it purely based on the traffic study, which purports to show a reduction in daily trips?

Quote from: Josh on July 18, 2013, 09:25:56 AM
Will dredging the creek destroy it as a "bird sanctuary?"

Doubtful.  The birds won't go away after the dredging.  Although the geese (nuisance species) that currently frolic on the silt mounds in the middle of the creek at low tide might have to find a new place to hang out.  Dredging will allow even more wildlife to come further up into the creek.  Heck, we might even be able to see manatees there.

QuoteAn interesting statement that I learned last night is that, because the developer would get credits for what's already on the site, the proposed new development would not be required to pay any mobility impact fees. Can anyone explain why that's the case? Is it purely based on the traffic study, which purports to show a reduction in daily trips

You pretty much answered your own question.  He's getting credit for trips already on site.

QuoteA roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

It is a shame that the roundabout was derailed by one property owner.  That is a dangerous intersection for peds and could be made far safer utilizing a roundabout.  Would also slow down traffic through that area as well.  I'm sure there are plenty of parcels that the flower shop could relocate to in the neighborhood. 

QuoteA roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

That's a pretty wide intersection.  Perhaps the developer could pay the civil engineer for a quick roundabout plan as a sign of goodwill.  I would think the existing area is wide enough that the old Skinner's Dairy could remain, perhaps cutting a small circle out of the existing bulb out directly in front of her shop, but not encroaching on the actual building.   

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 18, 2013, 10:47:49 AM
I wouldn't call them arbitrary likely uninformed would be a better description. Even though I am for the project I just assumed it would cause heavier traffic.

Lake you were at the meeting yesterday were any traffic figures current and projected used?

Last night, it was mentioned that the developer has already conducted a traffic study. This came as a result of crowd concerns about more traffic and the need for an additional stoplight for the project. The development team advised those concerned to contact Steve Smith at COJ for a copy.

Quote from: cline on July 18, 2013, 11:02:18 AM

QuoteAn interesting statement that I learned last night is that, because the developer would get credits for what's already on the site, the proposed new development would not be required to pay any mobility impact fees. Can anyone explain why that's the case? Is it purely based on the traffic study, which purports to show a reduction in daily trips

You pretty much answered your own question.  He's getting credit for trips already on site.

QuoteA roundabout was part of Balanky's plan in 2005, but the flower shop owner, whose business a new roundabout would perforce replace, was pretty vocal about not wanting it to happen.

It is a shame that the roundabout was derailed by one property owner.  That is a dangerous intersection for peds and could be made far safer utilizing a roundabout.  Would also slow down traffic through that area as well.  I'm sure there are plenty of parcels that the flower shop could relocate to in the neighborhood.

I hope the person that has this flower shop owns the property and isn't a renter? And how dare you say "I'm sure there are plenty of parcels that the flower shop could relocate to in the neighborhood." How about telling this greedy developer to make his project smaller and if a roundabout is in order move it into his property? and leave the old Skinner's Dairy alone!

You can find a copy of the traffic study here: http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/traffic-study.pdf

There are site specific concerns regarding traffic safety that are NOT addressed in the traffic study.  The Applicant's traffic study looks at "road capacity", or number of cars on the road. 

Here's Metro's prior article about this redevelopment proposal, so the chat about this is all in one place:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=18183.0

Quote from: grimss on July 18, 2013, 01:01:20 PM
You can find a copy of the traffic study here: http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/traffic-study.pdf

Thanks for this info. :)

Quote from: Trixie on July 18, 2013, 01:12:27 PM
There are site specific concerns regarding traffic safety that are NOT addressed in the traffic study.  The Applicant's traffic study looks at "road capacity", or number of cars on the road. 

Here's Metro's prior article about this redevelopment proposal, so the chat about this is all in one place:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=18183.0

Thanks :)

QuoteThere are site specific concerns regarding traffic safety that are NOT addressed in the traffic study.

Do tell...



(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LlUNCzagB-I/TrwrXmN8aJI/AAAAAAAAAlI/VF8dobt4PM0/s320/sky+is+falling.jpg)

I'd like to know what are the concerns as well.  I'd love to feature them as a front page article that includes examples of what other developments and communities of similar context have done to resolve them.

Possibly relevant.

(http://beardfluff.com/wp-content/webcomic/twobitchaos/2013-04-08-overblown.png)

NICE to see you come out on board with the idea of a traffic circle at Herschel and St.Johns!!

The old Skinner's Dairy building and its curbing would not need to be touched if Mr.Balanky would sympathetically consider a 25 foot crescent arc of largely uselessly shaped frontage to be taken over for such an entrance to one of the garages at 4000 St.Johns. 
Not even a single mature oak would have to go!

Once the overhead electrical goes under, these trees would really flourish!

I still wonder what the poll of public opinion would say needs to be placed in the center of a roundabout here.

When we look around town at recent examples we don't have much inspiration from which to cull.  A fake lighthouse? A mound of palms? A lone oak or lagustrum?
What about a 10' tall 1 inch deep circular waterfall with a timed 30 ft vertical blast?

Place making and a sense of arrival to somewhere unique and special are both sorely needed for this and other nearby ventures to be ultimately successful and in some instances such a whimsical feature proves to be that catalyst.

What say you?
What say you all?



EDIT :
I have actually found the center point of the intersection using a 50 ft measuring tape (operating under the understanding that new roundabouuts on state roads must be 100 ft in diameter)  The center of the the 100 ft diameter is marked by a metal disc about the size of a bread and butter plate and is visisble from maps.google.com

The Flower Shop would NOT be affected AT ALL.
The curbs and parking at the Animal Clinic likewise remain unchanged.
Mr.Balanky unerstands that the recent upgrades to the guardrails of the Herschel St Fishweir Creek bridge and the installation of the utility box on the north east side of the bridge and the curved sidewalk around the aforementioned utility box would mark one end of the greenspace at 4000 St.Johns which would need to be rededicated to the good ol CoJ in order for the FDOT to construct the safety device for all modes which we keep calling traffic circles.

See for your selves.
Take  50ft tape and locate the metal disc in the dead center of where a 100 ft circle would fit if you left each curb in place at RayWare, the Animal Clinic, and the Flower Shop, you will find that the loss of green space below the oak canopy is both minimal and would create, along with the right center feature in the roundabout - quite the sense of uniqueness, specialness such a place needs where regionally unique retail, a rare boardwalk, and good living all combine with all modes of mobility.

I for one and quite obviously all for it.

QuoteWhen we look around town at recent examples we don't have much inspiration from which to cull.

The Andrew Jackson statue is in the roundabout in front of the Landing.  The roundabout in front of MOSH has a really great sculpture from SMPS.

Those are some local examples off the top of my head.

Although, a much more cost effective option would be to fill attractive native landscaping throughout the roundabout and make it a living monument to sustainability. 

At this point, it would be sort of premature to discuss what would adorn the roundabout... the key is, getting buy-in about what I feel is a very valid reason to have a roundabout there in the first place.

Can we extend the skyway to it? How about light rail? I'd love to see light rail up the S-curve, would be a hoot!

Quote from: mtraininjax on August 05, 2013, 06:18:56 PM
Can we extend the skyway to it? How about light rail? I'd love to see light rail up the S-curve, would be a hoot!

Dynamite drop in.  Run along now, adults are talking. 

Revised conceptual site plans for the proposed development have been sent to the City, RAP, and interested neighborhood groups: http://commander-rezoning.com/2013/08/27/revised-site-plans-submitted-august-22nd-2013/

So the website says this goes before the Planning Commission on Sept. 12th.  Is that still accurate?

New design looks good to me. I like the portion closest to Herschel. They could make a great public space there

Quote from: cline on August 27, 2013, 11:32:56 AM
So the website says this goes before the Planning Commission on Sept. 12th.  Is that still accurate?

That's the correct date for now, although I wouldn't be surprised to see it change. Councilman Love is trying to set up a meeting between Balanky, his attorney, and various stakeholder groups to mediate some sort of compromise.

Quote from: grimss on August 27, 2013, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: cline on August 27, 2013, 11:32:56 AM
So the website says this goes before the Planning Commission on Sept. 12th.  Is that still accurate?

That's the correct date for now, although I wouldn't be surprised to see it change. Councilman Love is trying to set up a meeting between Balanky, his attorney, and various stakeholder groups to mediate some sort of compromise.

This isn't a compromise?  How many "compromises" does he need to go through?  This will be the third community meeting.  What would the ultimate compromise be.  A vacant lot?

Quote from: cline on August 27, 2013, 12:38:45 PM

Quote from: grimss on August 27, 2013, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: cline on August 27, 2013, 11:32:56 AM
So the website says this goes before the Planning Commission on Sept. 12th.  Is that still accurate?

That's the correct date for now, although I wouldn't be surprised to see it change. Councilman Love is trying to set up a meeting between Balanky, his attorney, and various stakeholder groups to mediate some sort of compromise.

This isn't a compromise?  How many "compromises" does he need to go through?  This will be the third community meeting.  What would the ultimate compromise be.  A vacant lot?

Sorry, my words were sloppy. The actual email from Love's assistant calls it a "mediation meeting."

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

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

Take a look at the difference in scale.


(http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/opt-revise_sjv_09_19_13_page_04.jpg?w=1000&h=)


(http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/opt-revise_sjv_09_19_13_page_08.jpg?w=1000&h=)


(http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/opt-revise_sjv_09_19_13_page_11.jpg?w=1000&h=)


(http://avondalesmartdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/opt-revise_sjv_09_19_13_page_14.jpg?w=1000&h=)


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

Quote from: grimss on September 24, 2013, 02:18:24 PM
Balanky and his team presented their latest set of plans last Thursday, September 19th. Highlights: 3 residential buildings, 260 units, 1 commercial building with 10,000 s.f. retail, max height five stories, dropping request for land use change on SJV parcel as they believe development, as presently configured, doesn't require it.

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

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

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

Quote from: dougskiles on September 24, 2013, 06:31:31 PM

Quote from: grimss on September 24, 2013, 02:18:24 PM
Balanky and his team presented their latest set of plans last Thursday, September 19th. Highlights: 3 residential buildings, 260 units, 1 commercial building with 10,000 s.f. retail, max height five stories, dropping request for land use change on SJV parcel as they believe development, as presently configured, doesn't require it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 24, 2013, 08:53:01 PM
Isn't St. Johns Ave a state road though there?  Have they talked to the folks at FDOT?

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

Quote from: grimss on September 24, 2013, 08:21:23 PM
One question about the "road diet"--willl that allow room for a bike lane? And, while I love the idea of the wider sidewalks, I do have  concerns about narrowing the road just as folks are moving onto St. Johns, with its problematic curves. Any insight into how this might work?  Thanks.

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

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

Cool!

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: dougskiles on September 24, 2013, 09:36:43 PM

Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 24, 2013, 08:53:01 PM
Isn't St. Johns Ave a state road though there?  Have they talked to the folks at FDOT?

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

Quote from: grimss on September 24, 2013, 08:21:23 PM
One question about the "road diet"--willl that allow room for a bike lane? And, while I love the idea of the wider sidewalks, I do have  concerns about narrowing the road just as folks are moving onto St. Johns, with its problematic curves. Any insight into how this might work?  Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: PeeJayEss on September 25, 2013, 10:26:50 AM
I don't see how any neighbor argues with this newest proposal. Adjacent homeowner's home values will actually go up immediately without the tower visibility, traffic design load isn't increasing, river access is being improved, the place won't look like an abandoned office park, and a boardwalk along the creek. It looks like they even hid the parking deck. I'm generally for higher density, but I'm with the NIMBY's that a tall tower was a bit out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood (that and I'd take downtown, Lavilla, and Brooklyn covered in 3-story buildings rather than have a couple scattered skyscrapers). I think the only issue I can think of is the setback of the buildings from the road, but the curve presents some challenges and, if you have to choose between road-fronting and creek-fronting, I'd go with creek almost all the time (if the alternative is parking on the creek side).

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

Quote from: fieldafm on September 25, 2013, 09:09:01 AM

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

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

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

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

Quote from: grimss on September 25, 2013, 10:35:24 AM

Quote from: fieldafm on September 25, 2013, 09:09:01 AM
I still believe in my heart of hearts that a roundabout is sorely needed at the Herschel/St Johns intersection.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: PeeJayEss on September 25, 2013, 10:26:50 AM
I don't see how any neighbor argues with this newest proposal. Adjacent homeowner's home values will actually go up immediately without the tower visibility, traffic design load isn't increasing, river access is being improved, the place won't look like an abandoned office park, and a boardwalk along the creek. It looks like they even hid the parking deck. I'm generally for higher density, but I'm with the NIMBY's that a tall tower was a bit out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood (that and I'd take downtown, Lavilla, and Brooklyn covered in 3-story buildings rather than have a couple scattered skyscrapers). I think the only issue I can think of is the setback of the buildings from the road, but the curve presents some challenges and, if you have to choose between road-fronting and creek-fronting, I'd go with creek almost all the time (if the alternative is parking on the creek side).

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

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

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

However, I do agree that the entire intersection needs rethinking

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

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

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

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

Quote from: grimss on September 25, 2013, 10:35:24 AM
If you look at San Marco's new roundabouts, there are big pedestrian crossing signs, but the pedestrian has to wait until a car bothers to notice them. Not sure how well this would work for kids going to school.

The Jacksonville driver is a highly untrained one when it comes to noticing anything on the road that doesn't utilize at least four wheels. How are kids crossing the intersection now? I imagine that intersection (and many more) would benefit from the presence of big pedestrian crossing signs regardless of configuration.  Over time, they'll help modify driver behavior.

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

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

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

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

A roundabout serves as a traffic calming device and helps to reduce speeds and conflict points, thus making an intersections safer by reducing crashes.  It is possible (and perhaps in this situation warranted) to install a pedestrian actuated signal that would cause cars to stop so that peds can cross the road.  This may be one of those situations.

Quote from: fieldafm link=topic=18985.msg347203#msg347203
When I lived at the Commander, they hadn't yet shrunk the lanes on St Johns and cars went pretty fast through those S curves b/c they could use all of the entire width of that very wide road.  Late at night, you could hear motorcyles tear through that fun little stretch of road as fast as possible.  It literally reminded me of the race tracks at Roebling Road and Road Atlanta...

My bad Field. I have many fond memories of late nights at the old curves. I'd even get my Grand Cherokee a little sideways back in the day. If I got my hands on something faster or more nimble, forget about it!! Yes, I realize it was unsafe and inconsiderate, but that's what you get for putting a racetrack in Avondale! Between the curves and the bump on Edgewood, it was a veritable autopark in the historic district!!!

A new design for the St. John's Town Center has been panned by RAP founder Wayne Wood.  The developer however believes he has come up with a good downsized plan. (link below quote will take you to full story)

Quotel
The developer of the proposed project at Fishweir Creek in Avondale has filed his plans with the city. Wednesday, he's holding a meeting to show them to the neighborhood.
Mike Balanky, owner of developer Chase Properties, first unveiled his plans in March for the $40 million project, that would replace the Commander Apartments and the St. Johns Village shopping strip on St. Johns Avenue. The first figures for the new project, also called St. Johns Village, were 350 apartments and 42,000 square feet of retail space. At the time, Balanky said he had no plans for something that large. Since then, there have been a series of community meetings and size reductions.
Last week, he submitted plans with the city for 260 apartments and 10,000 square feet of retail. Two of the apartment buildings are four stories, the third is three stories.
It goes before the city's planning commission on Oct. 24 and the land use and zoning committee on Nov. 5, said Steve Diebenow, Balanky's attorney on the project.
That would require no changes in land use, Diebenow said, but it would require a Planned Unit Development zoning change simply because there are changes to the last approval for the parcel under previous developers.
If it's passed through both panels, it would go to the full City Council on Nov. 12, he said.
But first, there's this evening's meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium at Florida State College at Jacksonville's Kent campus.
"We think we've complied with everything that they've asked us," Balanky said. "The overlay, land use, height. There are still people who want less density. But the numbers just don't work for us. We think we're where we need to be."
But Wayne Wood, founder of Riverside Avondale Preservation, strongly disagreed.
"We are by no means satisfied," he said. "It's out of scale not only for the neighborhood, but for what the comprehensive plan allows. Just because his attorney says it meets the plan doesn't make it true.
"We want people in the neighborhood to realize how monstrous this really is."
Wood also said he wasn't impressed that Balanky had reduced the project's size.
"He scaled it down from something that was impossible to build to begin with to make it look generous," he said. "But he's not even at the starting point yet."


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/2013-10-08/story/fishweir-creek-development-scaled-down-rap-founder-still-says-its#ixzz2hBElKzFs[/quote

I wonder what "scale" would be acceptable?  I am not sure what formula Wayne is using to determine scale.  Anyone know?

Who knows?  If the article is correct in that the new plan requires no changes in land use, the developer is essentially building what's allowed under the overlay.

It's very difficult for me not to see the "scale" opposition as a red herring. This 3- and 4-story development is "monstrous?" And what has the 16-story Commander Apartments done all these years, cause people to perish upon its sight?

As for the retail, it's 10,000 sq ft planned, but isn't the current St. Johns Village Center 40,000 sq ft? If I'm not missing something, and that's a loss of 30,000 sq ft, then I guess the opposition is mostly because of the residential portion?

Density would be impacted, but density is a tricky thing, because it depends entirely on how big or how small of an area you're looking at. It also has a tendency to defy people's assumptions that are usually based on visual evidence (the visual bulk of buildings, for instance) or the real impact of greatly increasing density on only a small piece of land.

Let's say you're looking at a 12 block neighborhood and you triple the population or housing density on one of them. A 200% increase. There were 35 people on the block, now there are 105. That sounds like a big impact, right? But the density and the population of the 12 blocks only increased by 17%. There were 420 people, now there are 490. Now it sounds like a much smaller impact.

Using assumptions of 94% occupancy rate and 2 people per unit, the 90 units lost from Commander and the 260 gained from this development would increase the immediate 0.21-square-mile census block group from 4,338 people per square mile (ppsm) to 5,834 ppsm, or the raw numbers from 927 people to 1,247. This is looking at the smallest and most impacted geographic unit I could, but even so, 5,800 ppsm is not high. It's a common density reached by car-oriented, American suburban subdivisions, even.

Here's another aid in perspective. This (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=25.765971,-80.282402&spn=0.006512,0.011362&sll=25.765971,-80.282402&sspn=0.006551,0.011362&oq=hialea&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=25.765971,-80.282402&panoid=k1DzQbbi-9sFDpI-xrhvfA&cbp=12,6.63,,0,7.39) is a census block group in Miami that has 467 housing units, 452 of which (97%) are detached, single-family houses. 1,540 people. It has a population density of 12,044 ppsm, more than twice what the Avondale block group would be after this development. Now, this is partly achieved through larger than average household sizes, which is typical of places with a high percentage of foreign-born population like Miami. However, adjusting it to the national average household size, the block group would still have 9,459 ppsm. This gives an idea of how much of the density is attributed to the small lot sizes common in Miami, usually hidden from street view, because they're small front-to-back, not side-to-side (the narrow houses of Springfield with deep backyards being a contrasting example.)

The point of this wordy post being: the houses in the link above visually give a sense of a quiet, low-density neighborhood, while the numbers show a different picture. In the reverse, NIMBYs usually get bent out of shape over something that LOOKS in their minds like it will bring inappropriate numbers of people, vehicles, and levels of activity, even when the numbers again show a different picture. Personally, I think the numbers are pretty darn important. I don't think people would care half as much about projects like this if they truly thought its greatest impacts were visual. It's the assumptions about what the visual change is accompanied by that fires up NIMBYism as much as anything, and density is one thing assumptions aren't too good with.

EDIT: fixed a couple of typos.

This may be a new round of WLA appeals since their Mellow conquest is all but dead. I like Dr. Wood, but I don't see what the fuss is, as the plans look to follow the overlay and the drawings look appealing compared to what is there now.

Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on October 08, 2013, 11:26:32 PM
It's very difficult for me not to see the "scale" opposition as a red herring. This 3- and 4-story development is "monstrous?" And what has the 16-story Commander Apartments done all these years, cause people to perish upon its sight?

As for the retail, it's 10,000 sq ft planned, but isn't the current St. Johns Village Center 40,000 sq ft? If I'm not missing something, and that's a loss of 30,000 sq ft, then I guess the opposition is mostly because of the residential portion?

Density would be impacted, but density is a tricky thing, because it depends entirely on how big or how small of an area you're looking it. It also has a tendency to defy people's assumptions that are usually based on visual evidence (the visual bulk of buildings, for instance) or the real impact of greatly increasing density on only a small piece of land.

Let's say you're looking at a 12 block neighborhood and you triple the population or housing density on one of them. A 200% increase. There were 35 people on the block, now there are 105. That sounds like a big impact, right? But the density and the population of the 12 blocks only increased by 17%. There were 420 people, now there are 490. Now it sounds like a much smaller impact.

Using assumptions of 94% occupancy rate and 2 people per unit, the 90 units lost from Commander and the 260 gained from this development would increase the immediate 0.21-square-mile census block group from 4,338 people per square mile (ppsm) to 5,834 ppsm, or the raw numbers from 927 people to 1,247. This is looking at the smallest and most impacted geographic unit I could, but even so, 5,800 ppsm is not high. It's a common density reached by car-oriented, American suburban subdivisions, even.

Here's another aid in perspective. This (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=25.765971,-80.282402&spn=0.006512,0.011362&sll=25.765971,-80.282402&sspn=0.006551,0.011362&oq=hialea&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=25.765971,-80.282402&panoid=k1DzQbbi-9sFDpI-xrhvfA&cbp=12,6.63,,0,7.39) is a census block in Miami that has 467 housing units, 452 of which (97%) are detached, single-family houses. 1,540 people. It has a population density of 12,044 ppsm, more than twice what the Avondale block group would be after this development. Now, this is partly achieved through larger than average household sizes, which is typical of places with a high percentage of foreign-born population like Miami. However, adjusting it to the national average household size, the block group would still have 9,459 ppsm. This gives an idea of how much of the density is attributed to the small lot sizes common in Miami, usually hidden from street view, because they're small front-to-back, not side-to-side (the narrow houses of Springfield with deep backyards being a contrasting example.)

The point of this wordy post being: the houses in the link above visually give a sense of a quiet, low-density neighborhood, while the numbers show a different picture. In the reverse, NIMBYs usually get bent out of shape over something that LOOKS in their minds like it will bring inappropriate numbers of people, vehicles, and levels of activity, even when the numbers again show a different picture. Personally, I think the numbers are pretty darn important. I don't think people would care half as much about projects like this if they truly thought its greatest impacts were visual. It's the assumptions about what the visual change is accompanied by that fires up NIMBYism as much as anything, and density is one thing assumptions aren't too good with.

Very good points.  I am very appreciative of Wayne Woods understanding and love of history and preservation in Jacksonville.  Love his books as well.  That being said, I don't understand the drama or scale issue either.  Of course on the surface it provides something to point to as a problem for Avondale, but as stated above we have lived with a rather shabby looking sizable apartment complex as well as an under performing and an unattractive shopping center with entrance and exit problems.  At this point it is looking to me like there are folks who just have a need to impose their views about development on everyone else as well as a drive to drive away people who want to improve their own investments and in the process make the area more attractive and vibrant.  This is a fight not needing to be had with an investor who is working within the parameters of what may be built on a property he owns.  You need to step back Wayne and take a hard look at this reality and ask is this really about what is right for Avondale or is it actually about imposing a personal take on what is right for Avondale?  I think the latter is the case and that this is more about exerting control that has gotten a bit out of hand lately. I own and live here too as do other family members and friends and frankly don't agree with the your scale argument.  What we currently have is far inferior than what is being proposed in my view and the view of others.

I am just looking forward to driving or kayaking by the site and not having to look at that horrible looking Commander Apts ..Why does Dr.Woods think he runs this neighborhood ?The developer of this project has appeared to be almost bending over backwards to please the neighbors..To be honest I liked the original concept with a higher tower.

Monstrous.  Out of Scale.  Generalizations. 

And is this RAP speaking through their founder, or just Dr. Wood speaking as a resident? 

Has he suggested any specific changes that he feels should be made or just make it smaller and less dense?

and what does he consider that ugly tower to be? I do not see how this development is any worse than what currently exist there today.

Is he going to derail this project which is a hell of a lot better than what is there now? How do these people get such power? This is why I was asking the same question about RAP last week..Mellow Mushroom is going to be great..but they sure wet their pants about it.

Quote from: Stephen on October 09, 2013, 11:10:33 AM
I am just looking forward to driving or kayaking by the site and not having to look at that horrible looking Commander Apts ..Why does Dr.Woods think he runs this neighborhood ?The developer of this project has appeared to be almost bending over backwards to please the neighbors..To be honest I liked the original concept with a higher tower.

Because he is the founder of RAP and over time has learned that RAP can be used to promote or attack an issue in our community.  I had long been a member of RAP and have supported much of their agenda when it comes to keeping the structure and fabric of the community intact.  I know RAP folks currently on the board as well as past members and leadership.  Wayne Wood is well known in the community and in Jacksonville and has done much to make it better and preserve it's history.  From his books to his creative ideas for things like the Riverside Arts Market.  Wayne in many ways has long been one of Jacksonville's cool kids and as a result some people do not want to appear to be in opposition to him on an issue and remain quiet cause, well Avondale is it's own world in many ways.  The back side of not speaking up is that Mr. Wood can also rally the troops and many will follow along, cause well he is Wayne Wood, the cool kid.  lol   Again, I respect and like Wayne but he was already quoted as saying if the developer did not fall into line with "his" views of what the property owner should do with his own dang property, inside what the zoning overlays require he would dig in and do everything in his power to stop the development from going forward unless he i.e. RAP got its way.  This makes it clear to me at least that this is about a stand off based in a personal view of the community.  While RAP has and continues to do many good things and I support those things, I think both Wayne Wood and RAP need to remember that their organization does not speak for everyone in Jacksonville and that in some ways it has now become obstructionist in it's endeavors as opposed to helpful and that is not a good thing.  Now I know my words are going to annoy some RAP followers and that is not my intent.  My intent is to point out that what one group may feel they do in the best interest of the community may simply be in the best interest of some in that they are using their influence in the group to impose their personal view of what Avondale is and should remain on the entire community and that is a problem.  When we see things like the all out attack on a business man and his idea like "Mellow Mushroom" and now the man proposing a new plan for his own property that is within what is legally allowed we are seeing a group that has lost sight of the reality that they are part of the community not leaders of the community which some of them see themselves as.  Perspective has been lost. 

Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2013, 11:19:55 AM
Yes,  A full 'scale' replica of Tara.

Wouldn't Sean Penn's character's spread in "Carlito's Way" be more appropriate....  considering the waterfront parcel overlooking the city skyline?

maybe somebody will have to be brave and mention this to RAP. The Emperor has no clothes or thinks he has too much power..I liked the proposal with the higher tower...anything I mean anything is better than that monstrosity that is there now. The proposal has a ramp for Kayaks. That will be so nice.

Quote from: Stephen on October 09, 2013, 11:42:02 AM
maybe somebody will have to be brave and mention this to RAP. The Emperor has no clothes or thinks he has too much power..I liked the proposal with the higher tower...anything I mean anything is better than that monstrosity that is there now. The proposal has a ramp for Kayaks. That will be so nice.

I just did Stephen.  They are reading the forum.  ;) 

Complaints like those may be letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The proposal is much, much better than what's there now.

I should qualify that even though I consider myself a preservationist, I must be of a different generation than most, because I don't see the Commander as a monstrosity. *ducks* I have an unpopular affinity for things like brutalism, commie blocks, and the very under-appreciated mid-century modern high-rises like the CSX (pre-tile-replacement), City Hall Annex, old Independent Life on Duval St, etc. I like the Commander's style better than the likes of Berkman Plaza or Villa Riva (gag), and much better than the later, blander buildings like the Cathedral or Riverside Presbyterian towers. Heck, excluding adaptive reuse projects like the 11 E Forsyth, I'd go as far as to say the Commander's my 2nd favorite residential high-rise in Jax after Park Lane. *dodges*

That said, I'm okay with it going. A smart preservationist only chains himself to buildings that at least a dozen other people like.  ;)

Quote from: Tacachale on October 09, 2013, 12:06:16 PM
Complaints like those may be letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The proposal is much, much better than what's there now.

I agree and believe that Wood and those he would inflame over this development need to take a breath and rethink.  If the development is within the criterion of the zoning overlay, making the life of the developer hell cause Mr. Wood and some others don't like his development is not a good thing.  RAP should not be the neighborhood bully and recently it has made some choices along with those in the WLA group that appear to be just that, bullying.  Time for RAP to take a hard look at it's own agenda and do some self reevaluation.  By this I do not mean finding ways to justify actions and decide they are in keeping with the RAP agenda as they see it.  I mean by stepping back and looking at how the organization has begun to exert influence in a way that is damaging and they refuse to see it. 

Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on October 09, 2013, 12:11:54 PMA smart preservationist only chains himself to buildings that at least a dozen other people like.  ;)

Nice. I've also grown to have a higher appreciation for buildings like the City Hall Annex as well. 

^It's not just the building, it's the use of the property. Those plans look much better than the current strip mall.

Is there an alternative plan floating out there that those opposing desire above what's been presented?  Is there a certain amount of desired square footage or number of units or is the hope to preserve the site in its current configuration?  Just trying to figure out if there is a rational nexus that the opposition's point of view is built upon.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2013, 01:19:11 PM
Is there an alternative plan floating out there that those opposing desire above what's been presented?  Is there a certain amount of desired square footage or number of units or is the hope to preserve the site in its current configuration?  Just trying to figure out if there is a rational nexus from opposition's point of view is built upon.

Not to my knowledge Ennis and I have been asking.  This is more about hammering away at any plan the developer submits that does not please Wayne Wood and those he has convinced that the plan as it stands, which fits the zoning overlay is no good, cause well you know "scale".  In other words one man Wood doesn't like it and has decided he is going to fight it until it meets his "unknown" vision for the area.  This isn't Wayne's world though and he needs to understand that once and for all.  It's a community called Avondale that RAP is not the overlord of.  If the plans meet the overlay and city requirements that's all that is required for the development to go forward. 

I am in close proximity to this project and want to learn more about it. How beneficial would it be for me to attend tonight's (10/9) meeting at FSCJ? Is it worth my while to attend?

Quote from: pwl32205 on October 09, 2013, 04:19:45 PM
I am in close proximity to this project and want to learn more about it. How beneficial would it be for me to attend tonight's (10/9) meeting at FSCJ? Is it worth my while to attend?

I would say it would be. If I were you though I would call and make sure the meeting is still on schedule. :)

How would Dr.Woods react if people from the community came to a meeting and spoke out in favor of the project ? Sometimes people in his position get pretty upset if they are crossed or disagreed with.

Well go speak out and be fearless about it.  Mr Wood is a single resident.  Everyone's view is equally important.

Expect this to now become an issue which Wayne Wood will use to fight this development which he calls "Monstrous".

Yellow-crowned night herons nest on a good portion of the west end of this proposal, and are listed as threatened by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  Share by one of his FB followers.  He like the info.  :)

(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a497/bruinbrain/trees_zpsb8edf823.jpg)

After making this image, I realized that since the herons tend to nest in trees above water, the circled trees in the bend of Herschel likely aren't in their interest. I imagine they also nest all along Fishweir Creek if they nest on this site, and there are far more trees across Herschel and to the left of this view.

I'm sure the developer can work around the small number of trees on the site if need be.

The Commander is a dump, it has been attracting all sorts of low end renters because who else in their right mind would sign a long term lease, in an old as hell building for one, when you know there is a tendency to have to move again soon? So to keep the lights on and paid, they are taking anyone for a short term lease.

Meanwhile, people are pissing and moaning over the design which will not end up as the real design because it always gets changed, but to call it what it is being called in the paper, is a travesty compared to what the actual and real conditions are for the Commander now, and it just gets worse daily.

Someone posted about traffic as an issue in the area? The only real reason there is traffic in the area is because the idiot lego-land rinky-dink bridge builders who were assigned the Riverside Avenue Bridge cannot seem to figure out how to build the bridge. Moving more traffic to St. Johns Avenue and more cars up and down the S-curve. Fix the bridge, alleviate traffic, make it better there. Otherwise normal 5 pm and early morning traffic are normal, otherwise, its not an issue.

How did last night's meeting go?

Lake, last night's crowd was a little smaller than i would have expected, given the dialogue on the MJ site and the article in the T-U. Around 100 people attending, I would estimate.

The presentation by Balanky et al. was, by far, the slickest/most persuasive of the three town meetings that have been held. Two presentations followed (Arden and Fishweir groups), which garnered support. Based on audience comments/questions, I would estimate 25+ spoke against the development in full or in part, 2 were full-throated in support (and articulate/effective), one dude was in support but totally off the reservation (actual quote from him: "Did you know that if the state of Texas were zoned at 24 units an acre, we could fit the entire world's population within the state's boundaries??", and one gal didn't mind the development, but thought the proposed rental cost ($16 per sq ft) wasn't going to fly.

Take-home message, to my ears, was--we'd love to see redevelopment here, but there are still too many units.

Quote from: grimss on October 10, 2013, 11:40:46 PM
Take-home message, to my ears, was--we'd love to see redevelopment here, but there are still too many units.

Why is everyone so fearful of adding density? 

Quote from: grimss on October 10, 2013, 11:40:46 PMTake-home message, to my ears, was--we'd love to see redevelopment here, but there are still too many units.

Any idea of what is considered the right amount of units and how that number is rationally generated?

The amount of additional units they're talking about seems like it would be a drop in the bucket as far as the amount of additional traffic on St. Johns is concerned.

Quote from: Stephen on October 09, 2013, 04:54:32 PM
How would Dr.Woods react if people from the community came to a meeting and spoke out in favor of the project ? Sometimes people in his position get pretty upset if they are crossed or disagreed with.

Dr. Woods has been dealing with people disagreeing with him for many decades and doesn't get upset.  He is a gentleman and very persistent.

I'm a RAP member and live just a few streets from this project and I support it and look forward to seeing that depressing, ugly, barely-used complex torn down and replaced with something fresh and new, filled with people who go to restaurants, stroll the streets, bring life to the area. The 'traffic' that they will bring to the area is a wash as they are also tearing down a a huge apartment building.

Speaking of traffic: what about the fact that Riverside Avenue has been rendered completely useless to nearly everyone due to the profound incompetence of the bridge builders over Willowbranch Creek? Where are Mayor Brown, Councilman Love and RAP? Why isn't this fixed yet? Get this goddamn bridge built. This is what is really affecting our neighborhood.

Duvaltopia sounds like a smart individual!

Indeed...Duvaltopia sounds very intelligent..

Quote from: stephendare on October 11, 2013, 09:01:30 AM

Quote from: Dog Walker on October 11, 2013, 08:12:31 AM

Quote from: Stephen on October 09, 2013, 04:54:32 PM
How would Dr.Woods react if people from the community came to a meeting and spoke out in favor of the project ? Sometimes people in his position get pretty upset if they are crossed or disagreed with.

Dr. Woods has been dealing with people disagreeing with him for many decades and doesn't get upset.  He is a gentleman and very persistent.

He has his more cavalier moments, however. ;)

Yes and I have witnessed some of them.  :)

Quote from: Duvaltopia on October 11, 2013, 09:44:01 AM
I'm a RAP member and live just a few streets from this project and I support it and look forward to seeing that depressing, ugly, barely-used complex torn down and replaced with something fresh and new, filled with people who go to restaurants, stroll the streets, bring life to the area. The 'traffic' that they will bring to the area is a wash as they are also tearing down a a huge apartment building.

Speaking of traffic: what about the fact that Riverside Avenue has been rendered completely useless to nearly everyone due to the profound incompetence of the bridge builders over Willowbranch Creek? Where are Mayor Brown, Councilman Love and RAP? Why isn't this fixed yet? Get this goddamn bridge built. This is what is really affecting our neighborhood.

Hello and welcome to the forum. +1 on the St. Johns Village project as well.  :)

Quote from: grimss on October 10, 2013, 11:40:46 PM
Lake, last night's crowd was a little smaller than i would have expected, given the dialogue on the MJ site and the article in the T-U. Around 100 people attending, I would estimate.

The presentation by Balanky et al. was, by far, the slickest/most persuasive of the three town meetings that have been held. Two presentations followed (Arden and Fishweir groups), which garnered support. Based on audience comments/questions, I would estimate 25+ spoke against the development in full or in part, 2 were full-throated in support (and articulate/effective), one dude was in support but totally off the reservation (actual quote from him: "Did you know that if the state of Texas were zoned at 24 units an acre, we could fit the entire world's population within the state's boundaries??", and one gal didn't mind the development, but thought the proposed rental cost ($16 per sq ft) wasn't going to fly.

Take-home message, to my ears, was--we'd love to see redevelopment here, but there are still too many units.

@grimss, thank you so much for your synopsis of the meeting.  I do have one question.  You said the proposed rental cost was $16 per square foot...is that per year?

If it's a year, that shakes down to $1,200/month for a 900 square foot apartment.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on October 10, 2013, 11:56:40 PM

Quote from: grimss on October 10, 2013, 11:40:46 PM
Take-home message, to my ears, was--we'd love to see redevelopment here, but there are still too many units.

Why is everyone so fearful of adding density?

Because they fear it will be a negative net change to their quality of life I guess.

The JBJ's Ashley Gurbal Kritzer noticed the difference between the San Marco meeting and others like the Commander....

QuoteSan Marco embraces Publix deal, unlike infill opposition elsewhere

...Another of Jacksonville's historic urban neighborhoods, Avondale, has a track record of fighting commercial development. Most recently, a retail-and-apartment redevelopment of the St. Johns Village project on Fishweir Creek has gone through six months of negotiations with residents, and historic preservation activist Wayne Wood was recently quoted in the Florida Times-Union as describing the project as "monstrous."

Avondale's ire over a Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers at the corner of Ingleside and St. Johns avenues delayed that project by more than a year.

But the opposition goes beyond the city's historic neighborhoods.
In mid-2012, a proposal to build a Chick-Fil-A in Mandarin at the southwest corner of San Jose Boulevard and Oak Bluff Lane was ultimately defeated by public opposition.

full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/10/11/san-marcos-response-to-infill-publix.html?page=2

Yes, the difference in attitude is pretty clear.  This NIMBY business and claims of "scale" etc because a few folks don't like change or feel threatened by it is foolish.  What amazes me most is that simply because Wayne Wood doesn't approve of the scale he honestly believes his take on project scale and design should be forced on the developer and the entire community of Avondale.  Amazing really.  God bless him, he has done plenty of good things for Jacksonville, I surely won't deny that but in this case as in the recent MM case with WLA, the few naysayers don't get to speak for the many as much as they feel entitled to do so.  This cantankerous no, no, no over this that or the other thing is really too much.  Especially when what is being proposed has been accepted in the neighborhood before (like outside dining for MM) or this scale business regarding the St. Johns Village.  What is being proposed is shorter than the current apt building and better looking as well as within zoning requirements not to mention the improvements in the retail portion. It's just a bunch of bellyaching in the face of positive change and it needs to stop. I am sure fed up with it. Wayne can huff and puff all he want's but his view is a single view and in this case he is wanting his view of Avondale to be the standard for everyone else.  It's a bit arrogant in my view.  No, let me restate.  It's a lot arrogant and reflects badly on Avondale. 

QuoteIt's just a bunch of bellyaching in the face of positive change and it needs to stop. I am sure fed up with it. Wayne can huff and puff all he want's but his view is a single view and in this case he is wanting his view of Avondale to be the standard for everyone else.  It's a bit arrogant in my view.  No, let me restate.  It's a lot arrogant and reflects badly on Avondale.

+1

Diane - Well said!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 11, 2013, 05:11:35 PM
Yes, the difference in attitude is pretty clear.  This NIMBY business and claims of "scale" etc because a few folks don't like change or feel threatened by it is foolish.  What amazes me most is that simply because Wayne Wood doesn't approve of the scale he honestly believes his take on project scale and design should be forced on the developer and the entire community of Avondale.  Amazing really.  God bless him, he has done plenty of good things for Jacksonville, I surely won't deny that but in this case as in the recent MM case with WLA, the few naysayers don't get to speak for the many as much as they feel entitled to do so.  This cantankerous no, no, no over this that or the other thing is really too much.  Especially when what is being proposed has been accepted in the neighborhood before (like outside dining for MM) or this scale business regarding the St. Johns Village.  What is being proposed is shorter than the current apt building and better looking as well as within zoning requirements not to mention the improvements in the retail portion. It's just a bunch of bellyaching in the face of positive change and it needs to stop. I am sure fed up with it. Wayne can huff and puff all he want's but his view is a single view and in this case he is wanting his view of Avondale to be the standard for everyone else.  It's a bit arrogant in my view.  No, let me restate.  It's a lot arrogant and reflects badly on Avondale.

Very well written .. +1,000

Very well said.  I am a new resident of Avondale, so this is good stuff to know. 

Moving this up the food chain, because I (belatedly) realized I posted this on the wrong thread:

At Planning Commission today, the project was approved with multiple conditions, including an increased parking requirement and an obligation to put $800K into an escrow account for dredging.

The next hearing will be before the Land Use & Zoning Commission. The project, as presently approved, includes 260 apartments (178 residential units on the Commander parcel, 82 units on the SJV--Loop parcel) and 10,000 s.f. commercial (including a 200-seat restaurant). Most recent plans are reviewable at http://commander-rezoning.com.