Renderings: LaVilla Townhomes

[thelakelander]

Some more pictures:

[thelakelander]

A question and a suggestion.
In the rendering above, is there one unit for each roof peak, or one per color change?

I understand the building depth problem, and like the idea of porch roofs over the edge of the sidewalk - if that is legal. A horizontal element added at the second-floor level, perhaps as a small eave-line could replicate the traditional 'face' of the residences.

I don't know how much it will impact the project cost wise, but one modern option could be to extend the awning over the door of each unit, over the front door and front window. Here are a few examples:

[jaxoNOLE]

^yes! But maybe it could be pitched and hipped to mimick a porch/shotgun style.

[heights unknown]

I agree Lake and Jaxonole. IMO they need to be a little more imaginative and do a little more homework to boost those imaginations and ideas.

[Des]

From COJ Zoning Code on awnings projecting over public way:

Sec. 323.104. - Permissible projections.
Under the conditions prescribed in this part and within the limitations specified herein, the following projections shall be permissible. When a building line has not been established, the street line shall control.

(b)Cornices of show windows, porches, and metal awning covers may project beyond the building line not more than fifteen inches, if the projections are not less than nine feet above the sidewalk level.

(i)Awnings attached to buildings or structures may extend beyond the building line not more than six feet nor nearer than eighteen inches to the curb line if they are not less than eight feet above the sidewalk level; provided, awnings shall not be wind activated or inflatable.

[jaxlongtimer]

This below approach in Amsterdam might not capture the exact look of LaVilla from years gone by, but it would help to make the block a lot more interesting  :

[Wacca Pilatka]

^ Not in LaVilla, but that Dutch/Belgian style did inspire the Herkimer Block building.

[fieldafm]

From COJ Zoning Code on awnings projecting over public way:

Sec. 323.104. - Permissible projections.
Under the conditions prescribed in this part and within the limitations specified herein, the following projections shall be permissible. When a building line has not been established, the street line shall control.

(b)Cornices of show windows, porches, and metal awning covers may project beyond the building line not more than fifteen inches, if the projections are not less than nine feet above the sidewalk level.

(i)Awnings attached to buildings or structures may extend beyond the building line not more than six feet nor nearer than eighteen inches to the curb line if they are not less than eight feet above the sidewalk level; provided, awnings shall not be wind activated or inflatable.

This is a city-wide standard. Does Jax seriously not have a special section for encroachments into the right-of-way in it's Downtown code? I thought Lori Boyer was supposed to have fixed the code a couple years ago. Allowing encroachments of different building types into the right-of-way is basically urban code or form-based code 101. In the municipality I work in (with a proper form-based code), the balconies on the two-story LaVilla home types shared by Jaxlongtimer would be able to project into the right-of-way, provided an 8' wide and 10' tall minimum path was provided on the sidewalk for pedestrians. You wouldn't be able to have much of a ground floor stoop with the need for the clear pedestrian path, but even still that building typology is more attractive and also allows shaded sidewalks.

Even if it's not in the code, I assume it is waiverable during the entitlement process. Especially under the condition that Jax's Downtown code is out of whack.

DIA basically prefers to grant aerial easement exceptions.  Things like the design guidelines, street hierarchy, sign ordinance, etc are inadequate, and basically everyone goes for an exception.  DIA feels that the Code is basically fine as is and feels that the exception process is evidence that they are easy to work it. But the fact that there are so many exceptions granted means that there needs to be more holistic updates to the Downtown overlay.  Its better than it was before Boyer took over, without a doubt, but it needs to be better. The entitlement process gets done, and the land use attorneys certainly make good money navigating that process. To me, the fact that there are so many exceptions, is pretty strong evidence that there is a problem and the Code just doesn't consider the many potential ways to build a better mouse trap. 

Its more reactionary than forward looking. There are many reasons why that is, but that's the best way I describe it to the average, non-real estate professional without going into the boring, technical nitty-gritty.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Does the City need to reinvent the wheel?  Can't Jax adopt best practices from more progressive cities with demonstrated success that we wish to emulate.  Someone must have an existing code that approaches our desires.  Seems after all those Chamber trips that we could have found something by now to copy and paste here.  The real question is, is there any interest in so doing? 

[fieldafm]

The DIA is going through a master plan update now. I believe the old CRAs were expired.

Unfortunately, the scope is inadequate- and it looks to have been structured in order to favor one politically-connected firm.  GAI has the contract, and has already brought us smash hits like this branding(?) effort.  https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/noco-no-go-4-reasons-to-ax-dias-downtown-rebrand/

DIA staff doesn't have the skill set (nor time) to take on a full-scale master plan update. That's not a criticism, as it would be typical to bring in a consultant for something like this.  Unfortunately, the money being spent on this CRA plan update could have had much better bang for the buck. Its simply not scoped correctly, IMO. 

[Des]

From the Downtown Overlay Zoning:

Sec. 656.361.6.3. - Public Realm Regulations.

B. Pedestrian Zone (Sidewalk).
1.Purpose and Intent. The Pedestrian Zone serves several functions - circulation facility, social space, and amenity area - and must accommodate numerous features and facilities to support these functions. The widths of the Pedestrian Zone areas should vary in response to context, but Pedestrian Zone width should be distributed amongst the three areas according to the following priorities: pedestrian (highest), amenity (middle), frontage (lowest, except when activated as a sidewalk cafe).
2.Requirements for the Pedestrian Clear Area.
(a)The Pedestrian Clear Area shall be a minimum of five feet in width in all areas regardless of right-of-way width. Where adequate right-of-way exists beyond the edge of the Vehicular Zone, the Pedestrian Clear Area shall be expanded to at least eight feet (six feet adjacent to permitted sidewalk cafes) prior to expanding the adjacent Amenity Area beyond the four-foot minimum or expanding the Frontage Area. When the right-of-way allows for a greater Pedestrian Zone width, the additional width may be allocated to Amenity Area, Frontage Area or Pedestrian Clear area as desired.
(b)The Pedestrian Clear Area shall maintain a minimum vertical height clearance of eight feet, clear of overhanging tree limbs, protruding fixtures such as awnings, or other horizontal obstruction.

C.Pedestrian Protection from the Elements.

3.Requirements for Protection from the elements.

(c)In order to accomplish protection from the elements, portions of a building or structure such as: awnings, balconies, structural elements, overhangs and cantilevered shelters, may be allowed to extend over or into the public right-of-way to within two feet of the curb, subject to the approval of the Director of the Public Works Department, as shown in Figure 6.3.C, below, and subject to compliance with the following:

(1)The minimum vertical clearance between the established grade of the public right-of-way and the underside of the encroaching structure is at least eight feet.
(2)Supporting columns will be permitted within the Pedestrian Zone when the grade level floor of the structure is set back a distance equal to or greater than the Pedestrian Zone area lost to the supporting columns, as shown in Figure 6.3.C above. This requirement shall not apply in the case of an existing building where an addition or alteration may result in the necessity to locate supporting columns within the Pedestrian Zone.
(3)A Pedestrian Zone consistent with the Public Realm regulations is provided.
(4)Structures built over the public right-of-way shall not interfere with any element of the streetscape including, but not limited to, lighting, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation.
(5)The structure extension has been reviewed, with due consideration to public right-of-way width, above ground and underground utilities (including the need for overhead crane access to underground transformers), pedestrian views or visibility, and adjacent structures.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ CityLife, are your pictures from Rosemary Beach, FL?    Looks familiar.

[thelakelander]

For the second time in 18 months, the Jacksonville City Council will consider a bill giving 3.45 acres in LaVilla to a private developer to build a town house community next to Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing Park.

The Mayor's Budget Review Committee voted 7-0 on July 12 to file legislation with Council giving the city-owned property to Johnson Commons LLC for its proposed 91-unit town house and retail project.

Johnson Commons — a partnership between JWB Real Estate Capital LLC and Corner Lot Development — finished second to Vestcor Companies Inc. in a 2019 Downtown Investment Authority request for proposals to develop the site, bounded by Adams, Lee, Houston and Forsyth streets.

For more information: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/second-try-at-lavilla-town-house-project-heads-to-council