2014-49
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on R G Skinner Parkway bet Baymeadows Rd & Philips Hwy (12.38± Acres) - LDR to CGC - Estuary Corp. (Appl# 2013I-001) (Dist 13-Gulliford) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
2014-50
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on R G Skinner Parkway bet Baymeadows Rd & Philips Hwy (87.85± Acres) - CGC to LDR - Estuary Corp. (Appl# 2013I-002) (Dist 13-Gulliford) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
2014-51
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on Philips Hwy bet Baymeadows Rd & Philips Hwy (45.54± Acres) - LDR & RPI to CGC - Estuary Corp. (Appl# 2013I-003) (Dist 13-Gulliford) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
2014-52
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on Philips Highway bet Baymeadows Rd & Philips Hwy (67.42± Acres) - RPI to CGC - Estuary Corp. (Appl# 2013I-004) (Dist 13-Gulliford) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
2014-53
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on Philips Hwy bet I-295 & Philips Hwy (23.19± Acres) - RPI to CGC - Westland Timber, LLC. (Appl# 2013I-005) (Dist 13-Gulliford) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
2014-54
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on Philips Hwy bet I-295 & Philips Hwy (122.12± Acres) - BP to LI - D.D.I., Inc. (Appl# 2013I-006) (Dist 13-Gulliford) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
2014-55
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on Philips Hwy bet Baymeadows Rd & Philips Hwy (135.21± Acres) - AGR-II & AGR-III to LDR - Estuary Corp. (Appl# 2013I-007) (Dist 13-Gulliford) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
2014-56
ORD Apv Proposed Large Scale Revision to FLUM Series of 2030 Comp Plan, Propty on Philips Hwy bet I-295 & Philips Hwy (68.31± Acres) - BP to CGC - Westland Timber, LLC. (Appl# 2013I-008) (Dist 13-Gulliford)) (Gabriel) (LUZ)
LUZ PH 2/19/14
Public Hearing Pursuant to Sec 163.3184, F.S. & Chapt 650, Pt 4, Ord Code - 2/11/14 & 2/25/14
1. 1/28/2014 CO Introduced: LUZ
I actually started to post about this the other day, but got interrupted and didn't finish my post.
Estuary Corp owns almost 20,000 acres east of 295, south of JTB, west of the Intercoastal, and north of Nocatee. I knew they would make some big moves with that land and have posted about it before, but didn't think they would start so quickly. If I get some time later, I'll try to explain what they are doing.
This is the development that has CM Bishop pushing to change how mobility fee money is used. I believe they want their mobility fees to be spent on an arterial road through their property instead of having it go to a priority project in their zone.
Also, you could see this coming a mile away, back in the days when 9B was unfunded and still on paper. Now that 9B and I-295 East Beltway are up and running, all that formerly cheap and inaccessible land is prime for commercial development. It was no coincidence that an overpass over nothing was worked into 9B between Philips and I-295. That's where the interchange for the new road will be.
One of these days, I'd wish we'd just admit, new arterials on the fringe aren't to relieve congestion. Their real purpose is to encourage development.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 18, 2014, 09:25:17 AM
One of these days, I'd wish we'd just admit, new arterials on the fringe aren't to relieve congestion. Their real purpose is to encourage development.
+1
For sake of comparison, the Estuary Corp land is almost 20,000 acres. Nocatee is only 13,000 acres.
Estuary Corp's land is about 30 square miles. The City of Miami only has 35 square miles of land area (not counting water). Large projects like this don't go unnoticed in cities with legitimate media.
Here are the Planning Departments staff reports on the Comp Plan Amendments. They start on page 199 and go for another couple hundred pages. The Planning Department recommended denial and it went to Planning Commission last Thursday, but I'm not sure what happened there.
http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/current-planning-division/planning-commission-docs/2014/2014-staff-reports/books/pc-book-2-13-14a.aspx
Quote from: thelakelander on February 18, 2014, 09:25:17 AM
One of these days, I'd wish we'd just admit, new arterials on the fringe aren't to relieve congestion. Their real purpose is to encourage development.
THANK YOU! Exactly
I'm sure if they were honest about this several years ago there would not have been much push back.
Quote from: CityLife on February 18, 2014, 09:48:59 AM
For sake of comparison, the Estuary Corp land is almost 20,000 acres. Nocatee is only 13,000 acres.
Estuary Corp's land is about 30 square miles. The City of Miami only has 35 square miles of land area (not counting water). Large projects like this don't go unnoticed in cities with legitimate media.
Northeast Florida would not have nearly as many sever problems it does if only our local media was turkey independent of big business and if cur media had world class investigative journalism.
It's been awhile since I looked at Google Maps/Earth but is there an airfield hiding in plain site near JTB and the Intracoastal Waterway just beyond the grove of a long leaf pine farm?
Quote from: BoldBoyOfTheSouth on February 18, 2014, 10:22:35 AM
It's been awhile since I looked at Google Maps/Earth but is there an airfield hiding in plain site near JTB and the Intracoastal Waterway just beyond the grove of a long leaf pine farm?
Yes. It's a private strip that has been there for a while.
Everybody except the initial developers will be hurt over several decades, maybe even a century by congested roads and future expensive taxpayer fixes if they are not properly designed grid systems in these new developments.
Whether it's Nocoatee, Julington Creek Plantation and massive amounts of subdivisions on the Southside of Jacksonville and northern St Johns County and also The St Johns Town Center and many office complexes such as various Deerwoods with not enough lanes for the prospective traffic and often with just one or two ways in and out which causes massive traffic during commenting bad lunch hours, more time we spend in our cars in traffic driving around all of these poorly planned developments.
More access roads with side walks and bike lanes will not only make our city more bike/ped friendly, help with public transit routs but most importantly, so we are not forever stick lining up way back trying to get in and out of our offices and homes and stores. Emergency vehicles and hurricane evacuations will also flow more smoothly.
History has proven that when we allow developers to only put in a small two lane (4 on some) with only one or possible two exits for five and ten thousand home developments and office complexes where tens of thousands of people need to get in and out of during commuting time and only two entrances to the St Johns Town Center, we all spend too much of our days in commenting hell because developers were not require to build enough roads with enough lanes.
All of northwest St Johns County and soon a hugely developed Nocotee and mid St Johns County all go to and from work either on Phillips Hwy, San Jose or 95.
All of our traffic headaches because developers were allowed to build all of these homes and offices with not a care that everybody will all converge on one of three roads all at the same time every morning and evening.
This us after the extra ten to fifteen minutes of everybody in Julington Creek Plantation taking just to get out of the plantation to merge with other commuters before even getting on Phillips or 95 north.
Quote from: pierre on February 18, 2014, 10:25:46 AM
Quote from: BoldBoyOfTheSouth on February 18, 2014, 10:22:35 AM
It's been awhile since I looked at Google Maps/Earth but is there an airfield hiding in plain site near JTB and the Intracoastal Waterway just beyond the grove of a long leaf pine farm?
Yes. It's a private strip that has been there for a while.
Since this private airstrip is grandfathered as a legal airfield, can they just have slight regulatory changes and all of a sudden is a busy airport renting handing rights to private jets or commercial transport?
All of that land near the rich in Ponte Vedra probably will prevent transport traffic for at least a generation but after that , who knows.
Those lots of corporate jets or small two seater aircraft landing just minutes of beach mansions would be very enticing.
Quote from: BoldBoyOfTheSouth on February 18, 2014, 10:38:12 AM
All of northwest St Johns County and soon a hugely developed Nocotee and mid St Johns County all go to and from work either on Phillips Hwy, San Jose or 95.
I've been told before that the Estuary Corp land will likely connect from the Baymeadows/295/9B area to the Northern portion of Nocatee at some point as well.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 18, 2014, 09:25:17 AM
This is the development that has CM Bishop pushing to change how mobility fee money is used. I believe they want their mobility fees to be spent on an arterial road through their property instead of having it go to a priority project in their zone.
Trying to wrap my head around this here potential, dare I say it, boondoggle...if a private developer is willing to risk their own money to develop virgin land and thus fully reap any financial benefits in the future, shouldn't that developer--regardless of any mobility plan fee incurred--also foot the bill for any infrastructure that needs to be built for the project to be feasible rather than going to the public mobility plan fund that was created to offset this type of suburban sprawl in the first place?
Is this the type of new road project originally envisioned as being funded by the mobility plan?
And would this new arterial road get priority funding before some other approved project already in the pipeline, i.e. if this happens, will Jacksonville ever really get a streetcar, separated bike paths, even middle of the street pedestrian crossing signs at dangerous intersections, etc. or would any future mobility plan fees just end up getting "conveniently" funnelled into these kinds of business-as-usual projects?
Quote from: L.P. Hovercraft on February 18, 2014, 11:13:39 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 18, 2014, 09:25:17 AM
This is the development that has CM Bishop pushing to change how mobility fee money is used. I believe they want their mobility fees to be spent on an arterial road through their property instead of having it go to a priority project in their zone.
Trying to wrap my head around this here potential, dare I say it, boondoggle...if a private developer is willing to risk their own money to develop virgin land and thus fully reap any financial benefits in the future, shouldn't that developer--regardless of any mobility plan fee incurred--also foot the bill for any infrastructure that needs to be built for the project to be feasible rather than going to the public mobility plan fund that was created to offset this type of suburban sprawl in the first place?
In theory...yes. However, there could be situations where a new arterial in the right place could alleviate congestion issues on another. The devil is in the details.
QuoteIs this the type of new road project originally envisioned as being funded by the mobility plan?
No.
QuoteAnd would this new arterial road get priority funding before some other approved project already in the pipeline,
Yes. The developer would have the possibility of spending their mobility fee money on funding transportation improvements within their own developments.
Quotei.e. if this happens, will Jacksonville ever really get a streetcar, separated bike paths, even middle of the street pedestrian crossing signs at dangerous intersections, etc. or would any future mobility plan fees just end up getting "conveniently" funnelled into these kinds of business-as-usual projects?
Maybe, maybe not. We could get a few bike paths out of the deal but we'd probably need additional funding from other sources for major mobility plan projects.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 18, 2014, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: L.P. Hovercraft on February 18, 2014, 11:13:39 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 18, 2014, 09:25:17 AM
This is the development that has CM Bishop pushing to change how mobility fee money is used. I believe they want their mobility fees to be spent on an arterial road through their property instead of having it go to a priority project in their zone.
Trying to wrap my head around this here potential, dare I say it, boondoggle...if a private developer is willing to risk their own money to develop virgin land and thus fully reap any financial benefits in the future, shouldn't that developer--regardless of any mobility plan fee incurred--also foot the bill for any infrastructure that needs to be built for the project to be feasible rather than going to the public mobility plan fund that was created to offset this type of suburban sprawl in the first place?
In theory...yes. However, there could be situations where a new arterial in the right place could alleviate congestion issues on another. The devil is in the details.
QuoteIs this the type of new road project originally envisioned as being funded by the mobility plan?
No.
QuoteAnd would this new arterial road get priority funding before some other approved project already in the pipeline,
Yes. The developer would have the possibility of spending their mobility fee money on funding transportation improvements within their own developments.
Quotei.e. if this happens, will Jacksonville ever really get a streetcar, separated bike paths, even middle of the street pedestrian crossing signs at dangerous intersections, etc. or would any future mobility plan fees just end up getting "conveniently" funnelled into these kinds of business-as-usual projects?
Maybe, maybe not. We could get a few bike paths out of the deal but we'd probably need additional funding from other sources for major mobility plan projects.
Interesting...thanks Lakelander.
Sounds like this could end up being another glorious
feather clusterf*ck in Jacksonville's cap.
My question, is what would a city council member get out of this? I mean this is not going to do anything for the city, so why his new stance on this? Even if you were extremely conservative, I can't see being excited about this. I remember from the meeting how he talked about the mobility plan killing creativity. Could this be the creativity he is talking about? :-\
This is probably the creativity that was being mentioned. Also, since all of the land is in Jacksonville's city limits, I'm sure the average council member views any type of new construction inside of the city as economic development that adds to the tax base. So if you have a developer saying they can't build their massive project because of mobility fees associated with it and you believe that line, then you'd be of the opinion that the mobility plan "kills creativity".
On a totally unrelated note, I could use my driveway widened and repaved.
Anyone think Councilman Bishop would be willing to sponsor a bill paying for it using mobility plan fees? I'll even write the bill for him so all he has to do is sign it and bring it up before the city council for approval.
This would certainly help my mobility and would definitely** help create much needed jobs to move all of Jacksonville forward--or at least the traffic on my street when I'm backing the car out.
If this were to happen I would certainly sing the Councilman's praises come election time should he choose to run for higher office, but of course would never be able to contribute a large donation of money to his campaign due to an appearance of a conflict of interest or quid pro quo--ethics violations and all that. And I certainly would not be able to offer him a job if he decided to stay in the private sector when his public service has concluded...I'm just a working stiff after all.
I wonder if he'd still consider it though?
**not really
This development in fact all developments on new land should pay for their infrastructure. That does not constitute anything extra. This development should also mitigate from it's impact and contribute to solving current mobility issues via mobility fees. Paying for their own development 100% is less than the least they should do.