Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

[southerngirl]

Does ANYONE out there know if the City/Planning Dept. has a master plan for River Oaks Road/San Diego that would explain why they are NOT supportive of restricting access to the Jackson Square development from River Oaks?

At the Planning Commission meeting last week, commissioners listened for hours to dozens of neighbors who are legitimately terrified about the addition of 1,000 cars to their small neighborhood street every day. Even though the developer and his rep (Harden) couldn't give a reason why they needed the River Oaks/Summerall access to their development, the Planning Dept. people who were there kept feebly arguing against denying access to/from the development onto this small street. They did admit that River Oaks is designated as a neighborhood street, not a collector, which means this street is not designed to handle the addition of this volume of new traffic.

Ultimately, the Commissioners did the smart thing and unanimously voted to add a condition to the PUD to restrict access to the development from the southern side of the development (meaning, no development access through River Oaks/Summerall).

This is a true WIN-WIN. The Planning Commissioners' solution means that these working-class neighbors' fear of increased traffic safety concerns are taken care of, and the development, which the neighbors are supportive of, still has access through major arteries like Philips Hwy, St. Augustine and Atlantic Blvd.

Let's hope the LUZ committee (Oct. 7) and the full Council (Oct. 14) see the wisdom in this compromise and support the traffic solution as drafted and voted on by the Planning Commission. If not, then the suspicion that the Planning Dept has some secret, more sinister intentions for River Oaks Road (including widening and thereby killing this wonderful stable neighborhood all for this one development) might just be more than a rumor.

[thelakelander]

Did the Jackson Square developer agree with having no access from his project to River Oaks Road?

[southerngirl]

Did the Jackson Square developer agree with having no access from his project to River Oaks Road?

Not that the neighbors are aware of.  It appears that they're going to have to be "forced" to do in this PUD review process, which is why the neighbors are worried that the Planning Commission's recommendation for the new condition won't hold through LUZ/Council, where Harden's influence is legendary.

[JeffreyS]

I am happy for River Oaks crowd that it looks like they are getting some support for their concerns without trying to kill the project.

[southerngirl]

UPDATE:  News came in last night that at a meeting with the developer and Harden, they are now saying they will NOT agree to the Planning Commission's condition that was unanimously voted in to alleviate the traffic concerns on River Oaks.

Harden apparently plans to actively fight the decision at this week's LUZ committee meeting.

So much for his "willingness to work with the neighborhood."

This is just a travesty. The neighbors have come all the way around to supporting the development and the developer and his "agent" won't even consider doing anything to lessen the impact on the small, existing, stable, working class neighborhoods nearby.  That's not progress, folks. That's dominance and destruction in the name of greed.

[JeffreyS]

I just do not understand why the developer thinks river oaks acess would improve this project. 

[southerngirl]

I just do not understand why the developer thinks river oaks acess would improve this project. 

Jeffrey -- see, herein lies the rub.  The neighbors don't think this is all about the developer's wishes...they believe there's something far worse for River Oaks Road being planned between the Planning Dept and Harden's developer -- more commercial/retail development on the other side of Philips later. You can see pics of the developer's master plan here (click on the drawings to get larger views of them):

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/737/

Some neighbors saw sketches (but can't seem to get their hands on them now) and heard from the developer's MOUTH that there are City plans for a massive realignment of traffic that will require substantial changes to River Oaks (widening, medians w/trees, moving utilities, etc.), all the way down River Oaks Road and up through San Diego on the other side of Philips.

All the neighbors are asking is for the city not to kill these small neighborhoods. Any secret master plan that includes widening River Oaks Road will remove the front yards of the homes on River Oaks, will make the safety of kids playing in those yards tenuous at best, and will require the removal of the handful of sidewalks that make this a true neighborhood.

And without "improvements," the City KNOWS that River Oaks Road cannot handle the cars/trucks that will use River Oaks to get to/from the development. Neither the City nor the developer/Harden are being up front and truthful about their intents where River Oaks is concerned.

The ONLY ONES WHO GET IT are the Planning Commissioners, who made the right call and provided for a compromise solution that the neighborhood was content with. Sadly, Harden has NO interest in compromise. He wants it all.  And his puppets in the Planning Dept. are more than willing to sacrifice existing, stable neighborhoods just for their favorite developer/agent.

[tufsu1]

assuming you are correct about some "grand plan" by the City (and that's a big leasp for me)...

all that needs to happen is to remove parking from River Oaks or add a parking lane between the existing pavement and the sidewalk...the road could then handle the additional traffic and nobody would lose their front yard.

[southerngirl]

assuming you are correct about some "grand plan" by the City (and that's a big leasp for me)...

all that needs to happen is to remove parking from River Oaks or add a parking lane between the existing pavement and the sidewalk...the road could then handle the additional traffic and nobody would lose their front yard.

What in the world are you talking about?  Remove parking from River Oaks?  Where will families with more than one car park? What about contractors who come to your house to work? What about lawn mowing companies' trucks?  It's not optimal, but parking on River Oaks is crucial for some homeowners. Their driveways are too short to accommodate multiple cars and nobody that I know of has the space to double-wide their driveway, and anyone who did would have to back out onto River Oaks -- if it's a speedway, that will be horribly dangerous.

Besides, why should those who have already established this wonderful, stable neighborhood have to give up so much for a developer?

Honestly, is it right to kill this street in the interest of the development, when a solution as simple as closing off access to the development from the River Oaks/Summerall side is a PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE answer?  Why not accept the compromise?  The neighbors did.

[tufsu1]

fine...so don't remove the parking...add a parking lane...there is plenty of room within the existing road right of way

that said, I agree that access to the site from River Oaks is not needed...I was just working from your agument that there are bigger plans afoot at the City

[Charles Hunter]

tufsu, I just "drove" down River Oaks with Google Street View.  It looks to me the only way to add "parking lanes" to this street is to remove the landscape strip between the curb and the sidewalks.  This looks to be about a 10' wide (or more) area that is probably City right-of-way, but I'm sure the residents consider part of their front yards (like on most suburban streets).

Is anybody looking into closing the River Oaks RR crossing? I seem to remember mention of that, earlier in this discussion.

[JeffreyS]

I drove river oaks as a looky lou since we started this thread. If you own a home on that street you would lose value fast if traffic capacity were increased. I like grids not dead ends but that street shouldn't be a major throughway.

[southerngirl]

I drove river oaks as a looky lou since we started this thread. If you own a home on that street you would lose value fast if traffic capacity were increased. I like grids not dead ends but that street shouldn't be a major throughway.

Jeffrey -- you've seen what we've been trying to get folks to understand for two months now. You get it. The Planning Commissioners get it. Anyone who drives on River Oaks Road can see clearly that the increase in traffic will absolutely kill this neighborhood. Not just home values, but the small streets, close neighbors, kids in yards, dog walkers on the sidewalks -- all will be lost to the traffic nightmare that is certain to come with 900 apartments and 350,000 sq ft of retail/commercial space.

Paul Harden knows the issues, but he doesn't give a rat's rear about anyone except himself and his client (note: see current Waste Management brouhaha for further evidence that he doesn't give a sh** about anyone but himself and his clients). The City Planning Dept. doesn't get it because Paul Harden told them not to and they do whatever Harden tells them to.

Turning River Oaks Road into a major artery just for this development is short-sighted, selfish and just plain wrong. People who stop, listen and consider the impact understand it. Harden and Cissel, Thoburn and Sean Kelly have no interest in listening. They believe they have the power to do whatever they want, and the neighbors are afraid they're going to, regardless of the Planning Commissioners' recommendation or the thoughtful pleas from rightfully scared homeowners.

Anyone who'd like to join the River Oaks homeowners and help support the preservation of this small, stable wonderful middle class neighborhood is encouraged to send an email to the LUZ Committee them to do the right thing for this neighborhood. Block access to River Oaks Road from the development -- send traffic onto the streets that are better able to handle it -- Philips, Atlantic, St. Augustine (though they weren't built for it either...)

[tufsu1]

Paul Harden knows the issues, but he doesn't give a rat's rear about anyone except himself and his client (note: see current Waste Management brouhaha for further evidence that he doesn't give a sh** about anyone but himself and his clients). The City Planning Dept. doesn't get it because Paul Harden told them not to and they do whatever Harden tells them to.

I am noit defending Harden....but you should know that the #1 job of any attorney is to defend their client's position.

And, I really don't think you give the Planning Dept. enough credit...if they are in agreement with harden, its because they have a good planning reason....like connectivity!

[JeffreyS]

Your right Tufsu1 who thinks government could ever have coruption?