Huge new development proposed on Fishweir Creek and St. John's Ave

[Dog Walker]

This was just posted on the website for the Resident News:  www.residentnews.com

I think it has some new information about the new PUD in it.  There is a PDF line in the article that is supposed to be the preliminary plan for the new PUD, but I cannot get it to download and display.  I've had problems with Adobe Reader recently which may be the reason.

Changes proposed for 50-year-old retail center, apartments
Added by SethWilliam on May 1, 2013.
Saved under All Top Stories
3932DupontCircle_Now

The land around the house at 3932 Dupont Circle was considered “country” back in 1913.
Today, the residents live in the shadow of the 17-story Commander Apartments and hope new development isn’t a change for the worse.

New vision for high-density residential complex upsets neighbors

A couple dozen residents attended a public meeting late in the day on Apr. 29 to share their thoughts about a proposed redevelopment of nearly six acres along St. Johns Avenue in Avondale.

At the heart of the issue is a land use amendment that would change the site, where the 99-unit Commander Apartments and the St. Johns Village Center currently stand, from community/general commercial to High Density Residential.
Along with the land use amendment is Companion Zoning Application 353, which addresses the future of the current 99,000 square foot apartment tower and the 43,000 square foot retail center. Both would be demolished to make room for development that would include up to 350 units in a mix of residential as well as office/professional/commercial space and a parking garage.

Attorney Steve Diebenow, representing the developer Michael Balanky, president and CEO of Chase Properties, listened to objections and answered questions for nearly an hour from
area residents who expressed concerns with the scope of the project.

Those concerns ranged from the number of units in the proposed multi-family development to increases in traffic and noise to the potential for more dog owners not willing to pick up after their pets while walking them on nearby neighborhood streets. Michael Fisher, a representative for Fishweir Elementary School, also noted that an influx of families with school age children could not be accommodated in the already at-capacity school.

While Avondale homeowners might logically appear to be the most invested in what could be another development battle for Diebenow, who recently wrapped up a neighborhood fracas on behalf of Mellow Mushroom, residents from Ortega and Riverside also spoke up at the workshop. The opposing side in the Mellow Mushroom development included the Riverside/Avondale Preservation Society and I Love Avondale LLC.

st johns development

St Johns Village Proposal â€" CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PDF

Linda Bremer, a Riverside resident and member of the Sierra Club, asked about the plans for Big Fishweir Creek, noting that the 2005 PUD included a marina. That PUD also had a provision for an $800,000 escrow deposit for dredging the creek.

Diebenow responded that plans for the property include a riverwalk along the southern boundary and a kayak/canoe launch and that the Army Corps of Engineers will determine the actual cost of dredging following a $100,000 study.

Ortega resident Erik Olsen noted that within 1,100 feet of the Commander is an active bald eagle nest with a mated pair that has had successful broods. “This could make it difficult to bring down a building or put another one up,” said Olsen.

Although the property at 4000 St. Johns Avenue is outside of the Riverside/Avondale historic district, it is under the 2008 Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay. This means that the developer is obligated to follow the requirements in the overlay or address any changes in a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) request.

The current PUD was filed in 2005 with amendments in March 2006. According to Diebenow, there are differences between the 2005 PUD and the new one, primarily the increase from 166 units to 350 and a quadrupling of project scope from 142,317 square feet to 595,000. In addition, another objection to the 2005 PUD was the proposed height of the condominium that would replace the Commander Apartments. The new PUD would propose more multi-family buildings of shorter height, spreading out the density over the site.
Another concern to area residents was the plan for a five-story parking garage, which would be wrapped around by residential units on the river side of the property.
Gayle Granger, who owns a 100-year-old home on the corner of St. Johns Ave. and Dupont Circle, said “If this property is rezoned as HDR, it would be an overuse of the property and cause a lot of congestion and increase the noise factor. That is not right for this neighborhood. A massive development will have a profound effect on the neighborhood.”
While no one seemed to be in favor of the proposal, several residents did offer a preliminary olive branch.

Thirty-three-year Avondale resident Douglas Coleman noted that this is the third rezoning attempt he’s been through. “We want this done so that it doesn’t negatively impact the neighborhood. But…there’s a bunch of us who will fight you all the way if a five-story, 367-car garage is part of the plan.”
Kyle Billy, who lives on Glendale Street, said “I’m not against a good development, but all we’ve heard so far is about a 350-unit development. In one location, that seems like too much for this space.”

“I was thinking it could be a good thing as it [the new plan] would be under the 2008 [Riverside/ Avondale Zoning] Overlay, which limits building to five stories,” said Julie Banks, who has lived under the shadow of the Commander since 1984. She would endorse it if “it was done beautifully and tastefully without the obscene height [proposed in the 2005 PUD].”
The 2013 PUD would have to be approved by City Council and the Planning Commission. The approval timeline for the new bill includes introduction of the bill to City Council on May 28 with the first City Council public hearing on June 11 and a Planning Commission hearing on June 13, a Council Committee public hearing on June 18 and, finally, a second City Council public hearing on June 25 (all dates subject to change).

District 14 Councilman Jim Love has proactively set up a second meeting between the developer and area residents to keep the momentum going in the direction of positive change. “It’s the right thing to do right now,” said Love.

A townhall meeting with developer Balanky and attorney Diebenow is scheduled for Monday, May 13, 7 p.m. at FSCJ Kent Campus Auditorium to provide a new plan and receive residents’ feedback. Be sure to check for updates at www.residentnews.net, and send comments or concerns that you would like to share with the community about this development to
editor@residentnews.net.

By Kate A. Hallock
Resident Community News

There are some site plan drawings in the article that don't come through with the quote above.

The square footage figures are confirmed here.

[JeffreyS]

The PDF is just a bigger version of this image.

[JeffreyS]

OK it does list 545 garage parking spaces, 15 surface spaces and 350 units. Average unit size 950sq ft. 

I would like to see the board walk continuous from the kayak launch to the bridge and stairs to the sidewalk near the bridge.  I know they are going to want some private river access but I think we should maximize the public use.

[Dog Walker]

Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?

It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact.  360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####.  Retail store = #### trips per day.  Beauty salon = #### trips per day.  Supermarket = #### trips per day.

Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity.  I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.

Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.

[dougskiles]

Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?

It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact.  360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####.  Retail store = #### trips per day.  Beauty salon = #### trips per day.  Supermarket = #### trips per day.

Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity.  I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.

Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.

We are looking at all of this information in the site design and will be presenting it at the May 13th meeting.  One of the reasons I haven't chimed in on this conversation yet is because I am working for Mr. Balanky as the civil engineer for the project (another is that I try to stay out of Riverside-Avondale zoning/landuse issues - having enough to keep me busy in San Marco).

I can't give any specific information about the development because it hasn't been decided.  The last thing I want to do is provide false or misleading information about this project.  As many have stated on this thread, we really need to create a more detailed plan for everyone to weigh in on.

One thing I can say confidently is that I wouldn't be working on this project if I thought it was going to result in a suburban style development that was out of context with the neighborhood.  I've known (and consulted for) Mike Balanky for the past 9 years.  Together we did the San Marco Place condominiums (won the ULI award for excellence) and the Kings Avenue Station (hotel).  This should give everyone some idea of the quality he puts into his work.

I am enjoying following the thread and will continue to do so.  Keep the great suggestions coming!

[blizz01]

Sorry - I may have missed - how tall is the main tower (by the launch)?

[JeffreyS]

Sorry - I may have missed - how tall is the main tower (by the launch)?

That is the only building on the PDF that does not list how many stories tall it is the other buildings are 5 and 3 stories.

[cline]

Are there some planners reading here, maybe Doug or Ennis, who can give us some "standard" planner figures for auto trips generated by apartments, retail stores and super markets?

It would interesting to try to estimate the traffic impact.  360 apartments at 1.7 trips per day = ####.  Retail store = #### trips per day.  Beauty salon = #### trips per day.  Supermarket = #### trips per day.

Since St. John's is an FDOT road, I am sure that somewhere FDOT has a road "grade" for that segment showing how close it is to capacity.  I personally have never had any problems with excess traffic near that location, but I also do not travel it at peak traffic hours.

Maybe we can get a little more information into this discussion.

PM peak hour trip rates for an apartment building are .62 trips per unit.  That being said, at this point it is not appropriate to calculate any trips off of the number of units because we don't know how many units there will be.  The 350 number is a maximum.  Once the actual number of apartment units and retail square footage is determined would be the time to do such analysis.  I am sure that a traffic study will be performed as part of this. 

[Dog Walker]

This is what was behind the PDF link on Resident News.

It gives the units and parking spaces in the white box on the left.

[acme54321]

It says "public walk to kayak launch."  Where is the launch and parking for said launch?

[Cheshire Cat]

It is BEYOND unethical for employees of Planning to be spreading innuendo about development plans that haven't even been completed yet.   That's a serious problem. 

This has been addressed.

[Cheshire Cat]

And wow, RAP's reach is extensive...why the hell should they care about Ortega Village??  It's basically out of the historic distric and is far from historic itself - this is pretty extreme that they are a governing authority in any way for this section of the overlay.

This project is indeed out of RAP's purview with regard to the historic district they are responsible for.  However they have weighed in with regard to the project.  Keep in mind that even if the organization can only remark upon this project, many of the members are Avondale residents and as such can weigh in on any aspect of this plan based upon that fact alone and weigh in they likely will. 

[MEGATRON]

It is BEYOND unethical for employees of Planning to be spreading innuendo about development plans that haven't even been completed yet.   That's a serious problem. 

This has been addressed.

How so?

[Cheshire Cat]

I don't believe I'm being alarmist in pointing out the simple fact that the developer is now asking for a different and larger project.

It would be very odd if the developer didnt figure out what the max would be and work back a site plan from there(that's just as much of a financial concern as it is a form-based concern, probably more so).  That's my main point, the due dilligence is the same whether the end product is contextually sensitive to the qualities the neighborhood values or not.  Additionally, the deadlines for the PUD application (should be changed) aligned in such a way that the process is unfolding as it is now (the alternative would have cut out virtually any public participation).  Having someone in Planning going around telling the neighborhood that 600k sq ft of residential and 150k sq ft of commercial on the same lot (without any real context as to what that means) stirs up a prejudiced bias and is not fair (nor ethical).  All that does is poke a hornet's nest with a stick (I learned that painful lesson as a kid).  No one benefits in that situation. 

In the past month, I've heard from several people that are fuming mad about this potential use of the property... and nearly every one of their concerns are not based on accurate information.  It's even more curious because people are quoting very specific information about the project, yet a site plan has not been submitted.  That is a big problem if the source of that misinformation is immenating from Planning.  That does not create a level playing field for anyone (no matter what good intentions the parties may feel they have).   

I very much appreciate the process.  The end result should be benficial to the neighborhood (and our community at large).  I have not formed an opinion yet, b/c as you point out... there is an absence of specificity at this time.  I personally like and respect most everyone involved in the neighborhood and the development team on this matter, but a familiar trend is happening that I have a big problem with (no matter my personal opinion of any one person). 

Couldn't agree more about needing a site plan before forming an opinion.  Once an opinion is formed it often becomes a line in the sand. Results in an I feel this project is bad(or good) so I do not need to listen to anymore details.  Some just won't consider anything else for prides sake after having stated an opinion( we have all experienced that watching posters on this site). 

When we get a site plan lets start a new thread and give everyone a chance to hit the reset button if they chose.

Exactly.  This is what everyone needs to wait on and then decide what they think about the project.  My thoughts on this are in line with Mike's in that at first blush this looks like an opportunity to improve upon what is currently on the site.  The old apartment building isn't historically valuable and really not attractive to my eye.  My only concern surrounding that structure is if anything will be done to help facilitate the moving of current tenants, especially older folks or those with limited funds.  The retail space has never been anything special either in my opinion.

I am open to change here.  My concerns will fall along the lines of traffic impact, height of structure with some attention to pedestrian friendly ideas as well as water access to public of course the desirability of that will depend upon what happens with Fishweir dredging.  I would want to see the areas of the project facing St. John's Avenue be attractive and well landscaped.  As already stated, we will know more at the meeting on May 13th.

On another note, it was a good idea of Jim Love to set up this meeting (which was not required) in order to allow residents into the loop of the conversation.  All concerns are valid concerns if they are based in factual information as opposed to speculation.  So my hope is that everyone remains open minded until we know more in the way of actual facts and see a site plan. 

[Cheshire Cat]

It is BEYOND unethical for employees of Planning to be spreading innuendo about development plans that haven't even been completed yet.   That's a serious problem. 

This has been addressed.

How so?

When a person is being paid using tax dollars to work for the city, the expectation is that while in that position, they will process any requests, documentation etc. coming through their department without prejudice as they are there to represent all citizens equally.  That is one consideration.  Another would be if the employee was using work time to post personal opinions about a project which is not appropriate given that they are working on the taxpayers time.  Independently, a city employee as a citizen or any citizen can speak out personally on any issue that they have an opinion about as long as it isn't on city time and if they are willing to risk push back in their jobs or from city officials which happens a lot.