1534 Oak Street - Appropriate for the Neighborhood?

[fieldafm]

Rain, i think the issue of scale is in regards to height of the surrounding buildings.... three storys and rooftop dining(on a tiny tiny lot) would look pretty big next to Regions, Mossfire, OBrothers, the Carter Pharmacy building, the condos across the street, etc.

Yes, it wouldnt be higher than 1661, but it would stick out like a sore thumb over the existing buildings adjacent to it.  Especially with a design that makes the eye naturally look skyward when viewing the building.

The parking would be a completely seperate issue.

[ChriswUfGator]

Rain, i think the issue of scale is in regards to height of the surrounding buildings.... three storys and rooftop dining(on a tiny tiny lot) would look pretty big next to Regions, Mossfire, OBrothers, the Carter Pharmacy building, the condos across the street, etc.

Yes, it wouldnt be higher than 1661, but it would stick out like a sore thumb over the existing buildings adjacent to it.  Especially with a design that makes the eye naturally look skyward when viewing the building.

The parking would be a completely seperate issue.

You can't really height-limit that lot either, otherwise you won't be able to build anything commercially viable there. Especially if people also want setbacks as well. It's really a very small lot. You have to leave them enough space to do business, or it won't be viable. And nothing is worse than a vacant lot, in this context. There just needs to be more integration and less walled fortress going on.

[rainfrog]

Rain, i think the issue of scale is in regards to height of the surrounding buildings.... three storys and rooftop dining(on a tiny tiny lot) would look pretty big next to Regions, Mossfire, OBrothers, the Carter Pharmacy building, the condos across the street, etc.

Yes, it wouldnt be higher than 1661, but it would stick out like a sore thumb over the existing buildings adjacent to it.  Especially with a design that makes the eye naturally look skyward when viewing the building.

The parking would be a completely seperate issue.

I will take anyone's word for it at this point, but the quote I was replying to seems to say otherwise. Can you explain that?  It was specifically this that brought up my questions:

But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants.  They like the human scale of the existing built environment.

[fieldafm]

But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants.  They like the human scale of the existing built environment.

Id have to defer to Kay, but the way I interpreted that statement was in regards to the fact that the Overlay's parking allowances(discounted from normal code's requirements) tries to make sure the neighborhood's fabric of density and scale do not become more of a suburban model of huge megabox commercial buildings with huge parking lots(as normal code requires quite a bit more parking be made available for a commercial building site construction than does the Riverside Avondale Overlay).

You can't really height-limit that lot either, otherwise you won't be able to build anything commercially viable there. Especially if people also want setbacks as well. It's really a very small lot. You have to leave them enough space to do business, or it won't be viable. And nothing is worse than a vacant lot, in this context. There just needs to be more integration and less walled fortress going on.

On no, I agree.  In and of itself, you can't regulate the height... but when taken in context with all the other issues combined, it can be agreed that changes to the current plan would be better for the community as a whole... that while the total plan does not grossly violate the Overlay, there are certainly aspects that could be compromised on that fit more with the community's desire as a whole.

I posted pictures and started asking questions about these issues in the aggregate here:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,9434.120.html

We can all agree that the site itself creates challenges and limitations. 

[grimss]

As I understand it, once buildings in this Overlay area exceed 45 feet in height, some of the parking allowances (not having to match what the city would normally require) disappear.  Under 45 feet, you only have to provide 25% of the recommended number; over 45 feet, you have to provide 50%.

[thelakelander]

According to staff report, this building will be 45' in height, which is allowed in the overlay.

[CS Foltz]

For a real change of pace...........instead of going up for 3 stories, why not go down for five? Put entire setup underground and down as far as needed. Use faux windows for views, each floor would be specific for the floor and every floor would be different. Very small entry at surface to enter elevator, other elevator for freight/goods and park on top of the thing at ground level! Use plantings at surface to direct traffic flow or lounge around ....heck you could even have a fancy garden and charge entrance! IMHO and thinking outside of the box! How energy efficient do you think that would be?

[Steve]

According to staff report, this building will be 45' in height, which is allowed in the overlay.

Correct.  The Elevator Shaft and stairwell and bathrooms and a couple other things apparently don't count towards overall building height.

[thelakelander]

Unless I looked at it wrong, the sketch in the staff report indicates that the elevator shaft, stairwell and bathrooms don't exceed 45ft.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Let's think about a few things for a second....  The bottom floor will be housing a restaurant, which would require some full walls against something (the designers chose Oak St.).  The next 2 floors would consist of a combination of residential/commercial.  The roof (4th floor) would house an outdoor bar, that would only be operating on the 'busy' nights.  (prob. thur - sat). 

The biggest issue, according to my own personal interpretations of Kay (whom I believe reps RAP) is the lack of parking that the designers have proposed.  The second issue, once again according to my own personal interpretation, is the size of the development.

Let's address the 'biggest' issue first:  I don't care how many parking spots that are allocated, there will be more cars trying to park in those spots. The entire area doesn't have 32 acres dedicated to parking, so why should one restaurant/business complex/condo be required to fill in the blank spots that have been un-addressed for so long that they shouldn't be the driving force for a business.  We have to stop the trend of trying to base the relevance of businesses to the amount of parking that they require.  We need to stop depending on the availablility of parking 2 meters within our destination.  If that were the case, most of us would have to park in Palm Springs if we wanted to go shopping in Key Biscayne.  Learn some alternative methods.


The second

[Kay]

Unless I looked at it wrong, the sketch in the staff report indicates that the elevator shaft, stairwell and bathrooms don't exceed 45ft.

If its the same sketch I have, they do exceed 45 feet.

[ChriswUfGator]

Let's think about a few things for a second....  The bottom floor will be housing a restaurant, which would require some full walls against something (the designers chose Oak St.).  The next 2 floors would consist of a combination of residential/commercial.  The roof (4th floor) would house an outdoor bar, that would only be operating on the 'busy' nights.  (prob. thur - sat).  

The biggest issue, according to my own personal interpretations of Kay (whom I believe reps RAP) is the lack of parking that the designers have proposed.  The second issue, once again according to my own personal interpretation, is the size of the development.

Let's address the 'biggest' issue first:  I don't care how many parking spots that are allocated, there will be more cars trying to park in those spots. The entire area doesn't have 32 acres dedicated to parking, so why should one restaurant/business complex/condo be required to fill in the blank spots that have been un-addressed for so long that they shouldn't be the driving force for a business.  We have to stop the trend of trying to base the relevance of businesses to the amount of parking that they require.  We need to stop depending on the availablility of parking 2 meters within our destination.  If that were the case, most of us would have to park in Palm Springs if we wanted to go shopping in Key Biscayne.  Learn some alternative methods.


The second

I disagree.

Think of what wonderful integration with the street a restaurant could have if the kitchen was all glass-enclosed, and pedestrians could see people cooking up the food as you walked by. Frankly it's free advertising, and it would probably make me want to go inside and eat something. But I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that restaurants must have some certain number of closed exterior walls, that doesn't have to be the case.

[rainfrog]

How well would it go over to have non-customers standing outside taking notes? Free recipes!

[acme54321]

I can't see what is stopping them from putting the kitchen area back on the wall that abuts mossfire. 

[CS Foltz]

I have one simple question.............everyone is pushing bicycles ...........where are the bicycles going to be parked at?