And it will require public subisidies to get built!
&fbclid=IwAR1qxjkmZjPPMNHldWVQ-a0QjMJ4U5AX0S2vLvxcCVDK2cCHU9WdOIBTI1w]https://jaxtoday.org/2024/02/20/opinion-southbank-storage-units-are-a-bad-deal/?omhide=true&utm_source=Jacksonville%20Today%20Audience&utm_campaign=16d59f2368-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_02_20_08_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-16d59f2368-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]&fbclid=IwAR1qxjkmZjPPMNHldWVQ-a0QjMJ4U5AX0S2vLvxcCVDK2cCHU9WdOIBTI1w (https://jaxtoday.org/2024/02/20/opinion-southbank-storage-units-are-a-bad-deal/?omhide=true&utm_source=Jacksonville%20Today%20Audience&utm_campaign=16d59f2368-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_02_20_08_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-16d59f2368-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID)
Strip out the self-storage units, and then lets talk incentives to make an affordable housing project featuring ground floor retail work for this site. This site serves as the welcome mat to Jacksonville for FIVE surrounding hotels. What kind of image do we project with filling that welcome mat with self-storage units?
After reading the first paragraph and seeing the rendering, I legitimately thought this article was parody at first.
You know that wildly unpopular self-storage facility that was shot down? What if we brought it back, made it ten-stories and windowless, velcro'd 100 apartments to the top, and made the taxpayers foot the bill?
Who in their right mind would even want to live on top of 550-600 storage units?
Big test for the DIA here.
Do what's clearly the right thing for this context, or relentlessly pursue their arbitrary goals for residential units.
Hopefully DDRB would clean up the exterior.
As is, it's pretty awful.
South Bank resident here, and I was a part of the opposition the last time this was proposed. I'm reading the agenda for the DIA Board Meeting today and it has this interesting tidbit (pg. 123) (agenda https://dia.coj.net/getattachment/0c3b209f-6d93-4e3f-9ad7-521a6da0976d/.aspx)
"WHEREAS, facilitating development of affordable housing within a broader project that includes self storage units which were opposed by the DIA Board, does not imply endorsement of the larger development project of which the affordable housing is a part or bind DIA in any other review or determination it may be asked to make with regard to the overall project;"
Also reading the attached Staff Memo, is this project already a done deal between the City and the Developer via settlement agreement?
"Alternative legislation was proposed in Ordinance 2023-007, which received a tie vote of 9 for and 9 against and was determined to be a denial by City Council. However, the Applicants filed a Request for Relief pursuant to Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, seeking, inter alia, a resolution between the Parties to permit the uses proposed in the Rezoning Application (the "FLUEDRA Action"), which led to settlement agreement between the Self-Storage developer and the City which if implemented, would "rezone the Property from CCBD to PUD to permit a ten (10) story mixed-use development with ground floor retail, leasing offices, and parking, vertically integrated with structured parking on the second floor, four (4) floors of personal property self-storage, and four (4) floors of multi-family affordable residential units (the "Revised Rezoning Application"). Applicants agree that there shall be a minimum of one hundred (100) multi-family residential units and the overall multi-family portion of the Revised Rezoning Application shall meet the requirements for the nine percent (9%) tax credit program with the Florida Housing and Finance Corporation ("FHFC")."
Quote from: Joey Mackey on February 21, 2024, 12:34:46 PM
Also reading the attached Staff Memo, is this project already a done deal between the City and the Developer via settlement agreement?
From my understanding, No. Approval of the project would satisfy the settlement agreement. If this is not approved, then the developer could go to court to challenge the previous 9-9 ruling and implement their previous project design.
Thank you for the clarification, seems like a real Sophie's Choice. Either approve this ten-story monstrosity or reject it and run the risk of losing in Court, which would implement the prior, worse design. I guess it depends on how confident the City's attorneys are that a 9-9 tie equates a "no."
I was there when that happened, it was quite the scene.
Dummy me, but if approval takes a majority vote, a tie vote doesn't qualify ;D.
Why are they so insistent on building self-storage here? There's a million properties around town that can hold a self storage facility including some not too far from this site but outside of the Downtown overlay. I'm sure the property owner could make plenty of money selling such a prime property to another developer that can provide a more appropriate use of the site
Jokes aside, the developer did a fairly good job designing the new Duval County jail.
If you crane your neck up from BBs, you won't even be able to tell the prisoners are in there.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Southbank/i-8qf8WRf/0/nBQdLqQk5bH8HpLNMXQDwDxNpSpptPg8RGwNH6QN/L/Southbank%20Rendering-L.jpg)
Our leaders are poor planners, no vision, and just plain brainless it seems. It appears that no one at DIA are sitting down (or standing), and intensely "thinking things through" before offering these proposals, renderings, etc. They just throw it out there and hope for the best with no order whatsoever in considering the type of neighborhood, commercial and residential aspect currently present, i.e., will this type of item "fit in" to South Jacksonville/San Marco. Based on what I've read (I am not that familiar with South Jacksonville), it definitely would not fit in, and as someone said it will "stick out like a sore thumb." This needs to be built (if it is built) in another part and section of downtown, and IMO not even in and around downtown or the urban core.
This will complement the Daily's gas station and JTA AV barn on the other side of the river. Add removal of historic buildings and watering down green space opportunities. Who says DIA doesn't have a master plan? It does if "killing the urban core" is the goal.
Does anyone know how this went at DIA yesterday? It is absolutely insane that the DIA doesn't memorialize video recordings of their meetings. I think virtually every Planning Commission and City Council type board in the state does these days.
In skimming through the staff report, the term sheet says:
"All development work and design features must comply with all applicable city codes, ordinances, the established Downtown Development Review Board Guidelines and the Downtown Zoning Overlay without waiver (subject to amendment)."
The staff report says:
"As captured in the subject Resolution 2024-02-06, facilitating development of affordable housing within a broader project that includes self-storage units which were opposed by the DIA Board, does not imply endorsement of the larger development project of which the affordable housing is a part or bind DIA in any other review or determination it may be asked to make with regard to the overall project."
From what I can deduce, the City settled the challenge to the rezoning denial, which opens the door for an the application for a mixed use project to be filed. The support of the loan also enables the applicant the proper path forward to include the affordable housing component in the mixed use project. However, the DIA is still leaving the door open for a denial if it does not meet the Downtown Overlay or DDRB Guidelines. Essentially, they are just following due process at this time, but not committing to an approval of the project.
Let's see what the DDRB does here. Would not recommend any back and forth with Lakelander here, as he will be possibly taking action on the item.
Quote from: heights unknown on February 21, 2024, 06:25:00 PM
Our leaders are poor planners, no vision, and just plain brainless it seems. It appears that no one at DIA are sitting down (or standing), and intensely "thinking things through" before offering these proposals, renderings, etc. They just throw it out there and hope for the best with no order whatsoever in considering the type of neighborhood, commercial and residential aspect currently present,
These leaders you speak of did not create this iteration of the project. The developer did and now they are bringing it before city leadership for approval or denial. The city has not signed off on this project.
Quote from: heights unknown on February 21, 2024, 06:25:00 PM
i.e., will this type of item "fit in" to South Jacksonville/San Marco. Based on what I've read (I am not that familiar with South Jacksonville), it definitely would not fit in, and as someone said it will "stick out like a sore thumb." This needs to be built (if it is built) in another part and section of downtown, and IMO not even in and around downtown or the urban core.
This is not in San Marco and not subject to the San Marco Overlay. This is downtown and therefore subject to different requirements, but also free of certain requirements like no height limits or no parking minimums. When talking about this project, it is important to know the context and what the developer can and can't do without an exception. Storage is not a permitted use and that is what the developer is trying to overturn. This is the developer's third attempt and each time they have tried to change tactics, but the fact remains that storage is not permitted and many organizations want that protected.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 22, 2024, 01:54:51 PM
Quote from: heights unknown on February 21, 2024, 06:25:00 PM
Our leaders are poor planners, no vision, and just plain brainless it seems. It appears that no one at DIA are sitting down (or standing), and intensely "thinking things through" before offering these proposals, renderings, etc. They just throw it out there and hope for the best with no order whatsoever in considering the type of neighborhood, commercial and residential aspect currently present,
These leaders you speak of did not create this iteration of the project. The developer did and now they are bringing it before city leadership for approval or denial. The city has not signed off on this project.
Quote from: heights unknown on February 21, 2024, 06:25:00 PM
i.e., will this type of item "fit in" to South Jacksonville/San Marco. Based on what I've read (I am not that familiar with South Jacksonville), it definitely would not fit in, and as someone said it will "stick out like a sore thumb." This needs to be built (if it is built) in another part and section of downtown, and IMO not even in and around downtown or the urban core.
This is not in San Marco and not subject to the San Marco Overlay. This is downtown and therefore subject to different requirements, but also free of certain requirements like no height limits or no parking minimums. When talking about this project, it is important to know the context and what the developer can and can't do without an exception. Storage is not a permitted use and that is what the developer is trying to overturn. This is the developer's third attempt and each time they have tried to change tactics, but the fact remains that storage is not permitted and many organizations want that protected.
Awesome. Thanks for the elucidation and elaboration, further, and thoroughly regarding this project. Much clearer to me now. I give you a feather in your cap!
DDRB just approved rezoning this 7 to 1 over the recommendation of denial by the staff. Can't tell from the article if the 8,500 sf of retail was just added or was included in the staff review.
Ennis supported the staff in round one but ultimately voted with the 7 in the end. Maybe, in due course, he can fill us in on the board's thinking.
In 2 days, they DDRB votes on the design and then it goes to City Council next. Have to say the façade facing the street looks pretty stark and absent any substantial interest or character. This is aside from the use of the building in the zoning fight. Hoping the DDRB can demand a higher design standard. We have enough ugly buildings. I see Vestcor is involved in this project and they are a leader in ugly building design. Cheap, cheap, cheap.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
QuoteDDRB supports rezoning for Southbank self-storage mixed-use project
The 7-1 vote came over opposition from neighbors in San Marco and the Southbank.
A new version of a Southbank development that includes self-storage drew a fresh round of opposition from neighbors but received a favorable ruling on April 9 from the Downtown Development Review Board.
The DDRB voted 7-1 in favor of an amended rezoning request for the Lofts at Southbank, a 10-story mixed-use development planned at southwest Prudential Drive and Hendricks Avenue. Linzee Ott, the board's vice chair, voted no.
The vote came on the third version of the project that has come forward. Residents in San Marco and the Southbank spoke out against it previously, and more than a dozen turned out for the DDRB meeting to oppose the new iteration.
"I've been thinking about what this project is like, and it's a little bit like a dating situation where a suitor just won't take no for an answer," said Liz Segura, a Southbank resident who has spoken against the project before.
The vote sends the rezoning request to the Jacksonville City Council with a recommendation by the DDRB for approval. The DDRB essentially serves as the planning commission for Downtown.
The project includes retail, office, restaurant or other commercial space on the ground floor, parking on the second floor, self-storage on the third through sixth floors and multifamily residential units on the top four floors.
The board approved the rezoning with new conditions, including that a minimum of 8,500 square feet of the ground-floor space be dedicated to uses other than offices for the self-storage and residential operations.
Also, part of the dedicated space must be devoted to restaurants and retail, and storage hours of operation must be limited to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
In approving the rezoning, the board overrode a recommendation from the DDRB staff for denial. The staff contended that self-storage was not a permitted property usage in the Downtown overlay of zoning guidelines and does not further the goals of the Business Investment and Development Plan, a guidebook for Downtown redevelopment.
Citing the availability of self-storage operations within a short distance of the project site, staff said an exception for self-storage was not needed.
Board members who supported the amended rezoning cited the need to activate Downtown and noted that the corner is sparsely used. The project site is occupied by a restaurant that appears to be closed....
...The board first voted to accept the staff's recommendation for denial. The recommendation was rejected 5-3. Votes to reject came from Joana Berling, Carl Dawson Jr., Frederick Jones, Trevor Lee and Monahan. Votes to back the denial came from Ott, board Chair Matt Brockelman and Ennis Davis....
....On April 11, the DDRB is scheduled to consider the project's conceptual design, including its architecture and scope. As was the case on April 9, the DDRB's vote on the design will send it to the Council.
Diebenow said the Downtown Investment Authority board had approved a $600,000 affordable and workforce housing grant for the project. The development team also is seeking a low-interest loan from the city of Jacksonville for the affordable housing component of the project. That loan would be capped at $6 million....
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/apr/09/ddrb-supports-rezoning-for-southbank-self-storage-mixed-use-project/
(https://media.yourobserver.com/img/photos/2024/04/04/Lofts_at_Southbank_Northwest_View_t850.jpg?94beabde1e982a4eee8f83697e93b1d92468de7c)
(https://media.yourobserver.com/img/photos/2024/04/04/Lofts_at_Southbank_t850.jpg?94beabde1e982a4eee8f83697e93b1d92468de7c)
That is.... something
QuoteDDRB just approved rezoning this 7 to 1 over the recommendation of denial by the staff. Can't tell from the article if the 8,500 sf of retail was just added or was included in the staff review.
This was always included in the most recent design. The space could previously allow for office use based on the proposed PUD, so maybe now it must be retail. Not sure.
Very interesting that we go to the trouble of hiring a DDRB staff and then totally ignore their recommendations.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on April 10, 2024, 09:33:42 AM
QuoteDDRB just approved rezoning this 7 to 1 over the recommendation of denial by the staff. Can't tell from the article if the 8,500 sf of retail was just added or was included in the staff review.
This was always included in the most recent design. The space could previously allow for office use based on the proposed PUD, so maybe now it must be retail. Not sure.
Very interesting that we go to the trouble of hiring a DDRB staff and then totally ignore their recommendations.
Who staffs the DDRB - the DIA?, City Planning? their own staff?
While I can't really comment publicly on the project since I'm sitting on the DDRB now, the DIA staff is the DDRB staff.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 10, 2024, 10:49:19 AM
While I can't really comment publicly on the project since I'm sitting on the DDRB now, the DIA staff is the DDRB staff.
Thanks, that's what I thought, but the way the article was worded it could have meant something else.
Have a good design review meeting.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 10, 2024, 11:33:54 AM
Have a good design review meeting.
Use is one thing, design is another. You definitely can put lipstick on a pig in this case. Hoping for less blank exterior walls in the final design. Heck, my house has a realistic faux window on the otherside of my shower wall. This project certainly doesn't require gigantic blank walls.
DDRB defers vote on conceptual approval, requesting design changes
QuoteDevelopers of the Lofts at Southbank are going back to the drawing board after the Downtown Development Review Board raised concerns about the conceptual design of the mixed-use project, which has drawn opposition from neighbors for including a self-storage operation.
Two days after a special meeting in which the DDRB voted in favor of recommending rezoning for the project, the board deferred a request for conceptual approval from the developers during a regular meeting April 11.
The deferral was granted to give designers time to revise the plans based on input from DDRB members, several of whom criticized aesthetic elements of the design.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/apr/11/southbank-self-storage-mixed-use-project-to-undergo-design-changes/
Update... City Council's LUZ committee approves this project, 4 to 3. The "yes" votes are the traditional and reliable developer's friends on the Council that almost always unquestionably rubber stamp what developers want, no matter the validity of the objections. Example of what is wrong with money and politics.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/apr/16/luz-committee-endorses-rezoning-for-lofts-at-southbank/
Has there been design updates submitted?
No. Too early for that.
Council approved rezoning. Hopefully the aestetics improve, even if they do though it will get value engineered to death and look like crap in the end. Such is life.
Below is a link to the article. The 11 "for" votes for this were the typical developer block of friends on the Council. Same ol', same ol' way Jax operates. Sad.
To add insult to injury, the Council went on to approve $6 million in incentives for this ridiculous project. Maybe it will die along with all the other downtown projects of late. With our luck, this one gets built. Uuugh!
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/apr/23/jacksonville-city-council-approves-lofts-at-southbank-rezoning-despite-community-opposition/
Strip away all the BS politicking, and council has achieved 2 things:
- Repeated loud and clear that the zoning code and overlays are meaningless. If an area as sensitive and well-resourced as San Marco can't get the council to respect the code, the rest of the city is hopeless.
- Codify into law a default pro-developer stance by specifying tie votes are not denials. But they aren't passage, either. So controversial, divisive projects get...unlimited mulligans?
Debating whether a tie vote is denial or simply failure to approve is about as close a thing to debating the meaning of the word "is" I've seen in some time. But I Am Not A Lawyer.
The project itself is underwhelming, but what's really upsetting is the ridiculously Jacksonville process it took to get here.
What "club" does the City have if the DDRB approves a certain design (say "paint the entire building in zebra stripes") and the developer doesn't do what the DDRB approved (say, they paint it solid blue)?
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on April 24, 2024, 09:37:21 PM
If an area as sensitive and well-resourced as San Marco can't get the council to respect the code, the rest of the city is hopeless.
This project is in Downtown, not San Marco. Big difference. This project wouldn't be built in San Marco.
Aside from the overall dislike of self-storage facilities, isn't this exactly the type of development most on this board would like to see? Multi-story construction, affordable housing, street-level retail?
I see NIMBY's on N4J comments talking about this like it is gonna be an eyesore in an otherwise low-density beautiful neighborhood... but this is a 10 story building just 2 blocks from a 38 story residential highrise, 1 block from I-95, and 2 blocks from a city-block-sized parking lot.
What am I missing that makes this so offensive to people who otherwise WANT vertical construction with housing and retail?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 24, 2024, 10:25:02 PM
What "club" does the City have if the DDRB approves a certain design (say "paint the entire building in zebra stripes") and the developer doesn't do what the DDRB approved (say, they paint it solid blue)?
The city simply wouldn't issue a building permit if the plans are not consistent with what is approved by DDRB. If they were to change it after building permit issuance, the city wouldn't grant their C/O. If they were to change it after C/O, the city would take them to code enforcement for daily fines for every day it is out of compliance and could ultimately place a lien on the property.
Quote from: CityLife on April 25, 2024, 08:48:06 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on April 24, 2024, 10:25:02 PM
What "club" does the City have if the DDRB approves a certain design (say "paint the entire building in zebra stripes") and the developer doesn't do what the DDRB approved (say, they paint it solid blue)?
The city simply wouldn't issue a building permit if the plans are not consistent with what is approved by DDRB. If they were to change it after building permit issuance, the city wouldn't grant their C/O. If they were to change it after C/O, the city would take them to code enforcement for daily fines for every day it is out of compliance and could ultimately place a lien on the property.
Have you seen the Southerly? Check out the plans of what the DDRB approved and what was actually built. The final product is atrocious.
They had to change it. next door they complained having it that tall next them would hurt there views and had to go back to the drawing board and lower to eight stories.
And i just saw that uf semiconductor institute man hub will not be in Jacksonville.
Quote from: Skybox111 on April 25, 2024, 11:29:48 AM
They had to change it. next door they complained having it that tall next them would hurt there views and had to go back to the drawing board and lower to eight stories.
I'm talking about the quality of the architecture.
https://images.app.goo.gl/czcz5tMDPceEZsYt7 (https://images.app.goo.gl/czcz5tMDPceEZsYt7) and the old rendering https://images.app.goo.gl/U8BcBZrPTpR8Hepx6 (https://images.app.goo.gl/U8BcBZrPTpR8Hepx6) i like the new one they built it's fine.
Quote from: Skybox111 on April 25, 2024, 12:37:13 PM
https://images.app.goo.gl/czcz5tMDPceEZsYt7 (https://images.app.goo.gl/czcz5tMDPceEZsYt7) and the old rendering https://images.app.goo.gl/U8BcBZrPTpR8Hepx6 (https://images.app.goo.gl/U8BcBZrPTpR8Hepx6) i like the new one they built it's fine.
Aside from the design, another blight along the river. First, taking away from the iconic mid-century "Prudential" building, second, way too close to the edge of the river, and, third, looks, and is, just crammed into a little corner so a developer can squeeze every last drop of money from the real estate.
Jax continues to sell out every day to poor projects just so we can say something is being done. This was the rationale given by Rory Diamond this week for his support of the 10 story self-storage/apartment building. We have no standards here and anything proffered is not worth the paper it is printed on. These projects of today will not stand the test of time...
Quote from: Skybox111 on April 25, 2024, 12:37:13 PM
https://images.app.goo.gl/czcz5tMDPceEZsYt7 (https://images.app.goo.gl/czcz5tMDPceEZsYt7) and the old rendering https://images.app.goo.gl/U8BcBZrPTpR8Hepx6 (https://images.app.goo.gl/U8BcBZrPTpR8Hepx6) i like the new one they built it's fine.
Go compare what they actually built to either of those renderings. The final product is straight garbage.
The quotes below from an article selling the Wells Fargo tower downtown show that architecture can create (or destroy) the value of buildings and surroundings. And, guess what? It is a full block back from the riverfront (which still didn't prevent the river from flooding its underground garage so take note)! No harm done. Would be criminal to
squeeze a high rise tower in the corner of the Landing property to compete with this building's presence.
Quote...."This is one of the most iconic and visible building top signs in the Southeast, and it represents a tremendous opportunity for a tenant desiring national exposure to accompany a large format lease," said Zac Gruber, president of Banyan's Office Division...
...Encompassing an entire city block next to the Riverwalk, "Wells Fargo Tower spans 655,000 square feet with striking architecture that stands out as an icon in the Jacksonville skyline....
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/apr/26/Wells-Fargo-deal-explained/
(https://media.yourobserver.com/img/photos/2024/04/26/Independant_Life_Building_t850.jpg?94beabde1e982a4eee8f83697e93b1d92468de7c)
(https://media.yourobserver.com/img/photos/2024/04/26/Wells_Fargo_Center_aerial_t850.jpg?94beabde1e982a4eee8f83697e93b1d92468de7c)
I hear ya Jax, but at the same time, we really shouldn't be allowing the government to intervene as heavily as it does downtown. I still maintain that our downtown development map has a very empty section, coincidentally happens to be our Central Core... not for a lack of space either. In some states, the government has a de-facto time limit on how long they can hold land public without a use.
If even world iconic buildings such as the Chrysler Building can be secondary to progress, I don't see why this building should be exempt from a similar form of progress. The issue being, we lack any substantial gain in our central core. The similar "keep it how it is" attitudes persist in all of our most meaningful submarkets (Beaches, San Marco, RAP, etc.). It heavily hampers development across our city, and it's why almost every 10+ acre parcel along a collector road in Jacksonville, has 3 to 4 story apartments. We only have so many of those left.
(https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/175-park-avenue/39965)
Quote from: Ken_FSU on February 21, 2024, 11:59:56 AM
After reading the first paragraph and seeing the rendering, I legitimately thought this article was parody at first.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/05/19/jacksonville-councilman-introduces-law-to-address-storage-units-vote/73654269007/
Agree with Carlucci's proposal and it makes sense. I would go further and apply this to all re-zoning change requests. Too often, one or two votes approves a zoning change with significant neighborhood opposition and/or impacts.
Just like the State requires 60% for a constitutional amendment change, something more than a simple majority should apply to votes with significant impacts and long term consequences.
I'm good with this. I actually am okay with regular rezoning being a simple majority, but I think this allows for changes in the urban core to have to be more scrutinized.
I don't have much heartburn over it.