Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

[JeffreyS]

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101408/met_343654919.shtml

San Marco project before Jacksonville City Council
Backers tout revitalizing area; opponents fret neighborhood effects.


By TIA MITCHELL, The Times-Union

Despite vocal opposition from some San Marco residents, the City Council is poised to approve a new development that supporters said will help revitalize the northern Philips Highway corridor.

The proposed Jackson Square project will include up to 900 apartments. There will be up to 200,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail use. The 17-acre development would be on the west side of Philips Highway south of Atlantic Boulevard.

A new road named Jackson Square Boulevard will both provide access to the development and serve as a mass transit hub or station.

Supporters said Jackson Square will provide development in a part of town that is dotted with closed or decaying buildings.

Opposition from the community has centered on the impact the development would have on nearby residential neighborhoods.

The main criticism has surrounded access to Jackson Square from River Oaks Road, which defines the southern edge of the property and is a connector to Hendricks Avenue.

The San Marco Preservation Society has hired a lawyer to fight the development.

The matter is on the agenda but a representative of the developer said Monday that both sides needed to clarify the long list of conditions the city has put on the project.

tia.mitchell@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4425

I hate that they have hired a lawyer to fight the development instead of hired a lawyer to address their concerns of how the development should proceed.  I do not blame them however as any look at River Oaks leads to an obvious conclusion (with or without a traffic study) that new traffic on the street needs to be mitigated.

[JeffreyS]

Sorry I didn't mean to double up that post.

[Jason]

Good news.

[southerngirl]

I think Tia got it wrong -- as I understand, San Marco Preservation's lawyer was hired to argue the SPMS issues at the LUZ meeting only. I don't believe they're planning to fight the development.

In fact, they've been trying all along to work with the developer, but his agent tended to make a lot of excuses for why he wasn't able to cooperate (hint: all of them were SMPS's fault, per Harden).

The issue of traffic impact hasn't gone away.  The neighbors plan to fight hard to close the railroad crossing, since there are no other ways to reduce traffic, per the Planning Dept., and thanks to the LUZ's vote NOT to accept the Planning Commission's wise recommendation/condition to restrict flow from the development onto River Oaks Road.

Now, Mr. Harden is going to push his remaining city buttons (Thoburn, Peyton) to stop the closure.  They're already starting to apply pressure. Here's the rub for Harden -- he's going to have to choose: either, as he stated at LUZ, the traffic impact they expect will be around 20 cars at peak hour (meaning, no impact), or the traffic will be so massive going to/from the development that the crossing HAS to stay open.

He can't have it both ways.  The City can't either. They're BOTH ON THE RECORD saying that they expect there will be no traffic on River Oaks Road from this now approved PUD.  OK, if that's the case, then they shouldn't  really care whether or not the crossing is open or closed.

[thelakelander]

Did the developer give a reason for why the crossing should remain open?  They should not care either way.  It seems that would something the city would either want or oppose.

[southerngirl]

Did the developer give a reason for why the crossing should remain open?  They should not care either way.  It seems that would something the city would either want or oppose.

At LUZ two weeks ago, Harden said, "...if that happens [closure of crossing], there's nothing I can do about it..."

That's what he's saying publicly.

But, I believe he wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the Planning Commission's condition if he didn't want that road wide open for his "20 cars."  And additional developments that are being planned for the other side of Philips.

Harden went on to say, about access to the development from River Oaks, "I think access is appropriate for the same reason Mr. Kelly [Sean Kelly, Planning Dept.] does."

These guys are one in the same. Throughout the transcript of LUZ, the two are speaking for and about each other in a sad and creepy pas de deux.

[southerngirl]

one last quote from LUZ...Art Shad went on record at the start of this meeting supporting the crossing closure.

Here's Harden's thought at the end of LUZ on Shad's decision to back the neighborhood he supports and recommend the closure of the crossing:

"If Councilman Shad is successful in doing that, then that's a different hill to die on, I guess."

Wonder what he means by "die on?"

[thelakelander]

ISSUE: Jackson Square development

WHAT IT MEANS: The council approved a proposed development on north Philips Highway, which will include up to 750 apartments, 200,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail space. The San Marco Preservation Society has expressed concern about traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods. A floor amendment reduced the number of apartments from 900, the original proposal. Bill No. 2008-563

ACTION: Passed, 18-0

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101508/met_344128811.shtml

[tufsu1]

Harden went on to say, about access to the development from River Oaks, "I think access is appropriate for the same reason Mr. Kelly [Sean Kelly, Planning Dept.] does."

These guys are one in the same. Throughout the transcript of LUZ, the two are speaking for and about each other in a sad and creepy pas de deux.

or maybe they just both realize that keeping the crossing open is a good thing for overall circulation...which doesn't necessarily mean lots of traffic...it just means that people in the neighborhood could get to Jackson Square, Douglas Anderson H.S., and Phillips Highway.

[southerngirl]

So, which is it?  Lots of traffic/needs to stay open, or no traffic/closure not a big deal, since there are literally 10 other ways to get to Philips, Douglas Anderson, BK -- starting with Emerson, and coming north to Brookwood, Dunsford, Lorimier, and ATLANTIC.

Again, I have to ask: why are the residents of River Oaks being asked to shoulder this additional burden?  There are other options the city can pursue (traffic calming speed humps on Lorimier, Dunsford and Brookwood should do the trick) to divert the former cut-throughers onto streets that were designed to handle the traffic.

[reednavy]

Apparently this has been abandoned. All signage was removed from fences and no equipment on site. I last saw any activity earlier this year in March.

[JeffreyS]

That is not good news.

[fsujax]

Well, the residents of River Oaks should be happy. Now they can have their crack heads and protistutes even longer!

[JeffreyS]

Just talked to someone from the number on their website and the project is still moving forward just slowly.

[thelakelander]

The economic conditions are not conductive to building a dense multifamily TOD with no transit system truly committed or funded to support it.  If we want to see places like Jackson Square come to life we need to make a financial commitment to our rail corridors.