Author Topic: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco  (Read 7714 times)

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2020, 11:30:41 AM »

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

Wow.  That’s what bothered you? Sure you didn’t  read that while checking the DAL ticker?  If you think that comment is nasty and emotionally charged, you may have needed a safe space if you had to deal with the other side :)


I mean, did I lose sleep and have nightmares over it? Of course not. But, it adds zero to the conversation and it makes it harder for other developments in the future.

Like I said, if it were me I'd approve the development at 49.5 feet anyway.

fieldafm

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4319
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2020, 11:34:01 AM »
I want to see this development come to fruition, but I have to say, I find this whole "weighted average" to be a bogus concept.

I agree. Be honest with the height and ask for the variance. Personally, I still would have been for it.

I will say....not impressed with Andy Allen’s comments on this one. I like his development, but I like him less after this.

I do not know Mr Allen and not  sure what he said related to this that offended you but I will give these developers credit for bending over backwards with changes and concessions to a group that unfortunately had no intention of actually compromising. Probably would have been helpful to know that up front. Considering the ridiculous performance from some of RSSM at these public meetings, I can’t imagine what it was like to deal with them directly.

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

I've found Andy to be affable, accommodating, reasonable and even keeled- both as a person and as a developer.

For him to be that frustrated at RSSM, then I have to believe that his frustration is warranted.

Frankly, his comments are pretty spot on about NIMBY'ism- particularly when it affects small business owners who are trying very hard to invest in a neighborhood.


As to the height/weighted average theory... I get the rationale in relation to a creative response to the concerns about scale.

This is what was approved next door over various times:



You can see that what is proposed at the church property is in line with what was previously approved at the Regency/Publix site... and the height steps down as you get closer to the single family properties.  You can make a reasonable argument that how the height transitions down on the North vs the South ends of the property are more contextually sensitive to the commercial area on one side, and the residential area on the other side in this 'weighted average' scenario.


« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 11:43:48 AM by fieldafm »

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Donut Enthusiast
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2020, 11:47:09 AM »
Since I have been very one sided, I feel the need to give to give some equal time to RSSM and I feel a little sad  the last 3 weeks has only produced an additional $5. Considering the recent CC decision could pretty much destroy not only the fabric ( word of the month evidently)of San Marco but Jacksonville as we know it, I would have expected to see a huge uptick in funding.

Not much more is needed. Can anyone help out some million dollar home owners? While I expect sign demand has dwindled, legal bills are coming.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/right-size-san-marco

Note, if you feel worse for me ( stock market plunge) you can give me some cash instead. Not only did we miss free drinks last night, but missed half priced bottle of wine last Monday too. It has been a trying week so anything would help.

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Donut Enthusiast
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2020, 12:39:44 PM »

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

Wow.  That’s what bothered you? Sure you didn’t  read that while checking the DAL ticker?  If you think that comment is nasty and emotionally charged, you may have needed a safe space if you had to deal with the other side :)


I mean, did I lose sleep and have nightmares over it? Of course not. But, it adds zero to the conversation and it makes it harder for other developments in the future.

Like I said, if it were me I'd approve the development at 49.5 feet anyway.

I am certainly glad you aren’t losing sleep over the DAL ticker. Sounds like you are in a good place with your risk tolerance level.

I have a completely different concern about future development in my community. I am wondering if it is less likely developers try to to work with the community over concerns after the RSSM embarrassing behavior. Hopefully their actions are viewed as the exception.


Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2020, 12:46:40 PM »

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

Wow.  That’s what bothered you? Sure you didn’t  read that while checking the DAL ticker?  If you think that comment is nasty and emotionally charged, you may have needed a safe space if you had to deal with the other side :)


I mean, did I lose sleep and have nightmares over it? Of course not. But, it adds zero to the conversation and it makes it harder for other developments in the future.

Like I said, if it were me I'd approve the development at 49.5 feet anyway.

I am certainly glad you aren’t losing sleep over the DAL ticker. Sounds like you are in a good place with your risk tolerance level.

I have a completely different concern about future development in my community. I am wondering if it is less likely developers try to to work with the community over concerns after the RSSM embarrassing behavior. Hopefully their actions are viewed as the exception.



This is another reason why I think SMPS could have done a better job driving the conversation.

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2020, 01:03:51 PM »
I want to see this development come to fruition, but I have to say, I find this whole "weighted average" to be a bogus concept.

I agree. Be honest with the height and ask for the variance. Personally, I still would have been for it.

I will say....not impressed with Andy Allen’s comments on this one. I like his development, but I like him less after this.

I do not know Mr Allen and not  sure what he said related to this that offended you but I will give these developers credit for bending over backwards with changes and concessions to a group that unfortunately had no intention of actually compromising. Probably would have been helpful to know that up front. Considering the ridiculous performance from some of RSSM at these public meetings, I can’t imagine what it was like to deal with them directly.

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

I've found Andy to be affable, accommodating, reasonable and even keeled- both as a person and as a developer.

For him to be that frustrated at RSSM, then I have to believe that his frustration is warranted.

Frankly, his comments are pretty spot on about NIMBY'ism- particularly when it affects small business owners who are trying very hard to invest in a neighborhood.


As to the height/weighted average theory... I get the rationale in relation to a creative response to the concerns about scale.

This is what was approved next door over various times:



You can see that what is proposed at the church property is in line with what was previously approved at the Regency/Publix site... and the height steps down as you get closer to the single family properties.  You can make a reasonable argument that how the height transitions down on the North vs the South ends of the property are more contextually sensitive to the commercial area on one side, and the residential area on the other side in this 'weighted average' scenario.


No arguments on the comparison to the various iterations of East San Marco. Like I said, I think the development is fine (and personally I thought the original one was better as it shrouded the garage better if I'm remembering right). That's a huge thing for me. Both this and the new East San Marco is FAR less dense than the original proposal for East San Marco - that is something that should absolutely be considered.

I've not met Andy. He might be God's gift to development (he certainly seems to be South Jax Presbyterian's as this helps them out immensely). I know he partnered with Alex Sifakis on the Johnson Commons development proposal for LaVilla which I thought was a million times better than Vestcor's original proposal.

Now full disclosure: Part of my view IS related to his tenure on the JEA board. He resigned before Zahn got tossed (along with the rest of the board a month later), but his board tenure was when stuff really went into motion with the planned JEA sale. Either the board as a whole was asleep at the wheel or actually thought selling in this manner was a good idea (or a combination of the two). Nothing will change my mind on the Board's work here so I guess I certainly view him in that negative light.

Here's my final point, then I'd say the horse is dead: We all get frustrated at times, and I have no idea what RSSM did. From the rumors I've heard here and other places, they seem to be the opposite of level leaded and reasonable. The problem is (and that LinkedIn quote was one of a few that he made; that one was just the easiest to look back and find) if someone at RSSM did some really crappy stuff, either share it (which he likely wouldn't do as I can't imagine what good comes from that) or just don't respond.

That's it. Now build the darn thing.

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #66 on: March 01, 2020, 12:14:24 PM »
I don't know a lot about Regency except "they are best in class shopping mall developers"....   That being said, I cannot help but think they would have been interested in the church site if they had been given a chance to put in an offer for it. With that extra parcel combined with what they already own they could have possibly done a truly amazing development..  Surely they have deeper pockets than the folks from Alabama (Harbert Realty) who are working with Corner Lot.

Or are they coordinating with them?

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Donut Enthusiast
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #67 on: March 01, 2020, 03:18:17 PM »
I don't know a lot about Regency except "they are best in class shopping mall developers"....   That being said, I cannot help but think they would have been interested in the church site if they had been given a chance to put in an offer for it. With that extra parcel combined with what they already own they could have possibly done a truly amazing development.. 

Just to clarify...you want to give the company that has done nothing with an empty lot for 15 years  (and allegedly finally going with a grocery store and a smattering of retail,wow!)a bigger parcel to work with?!?!

I envy your optimism.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 03:28:24 PM by sanmarcomatt »

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2020, 04:03:05 PM »
I didn't say that! :o

I put forth the idea that with a couple more acres they might be able to do something incredible. Whatever they do now will be way less than what was put forth 15 years ago.  And I don't think anyone expects much more than a Publix..... But I'd love to see a true complement to San Marco Square, a pedestrian friendly retail development with residential on 2 to 4 floors above it. Beautifully designed and built on the entire parcel. Because I really love the original San Marco Square.

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Donut Enthusiast
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #69 on: March 02, 2020, 12:24:44 PM »
I didn't say that! :o

I put forth the idea that with a couple more acres they might be able to do something incredible. Whatever they do now will be way less than what was put forth 15 years ago.  And I don't think anyone expects much more than a Publix..... But I'd love to see a true complement to San Marco Square, a pedestrian friendly retail development with residential on 2 to 4 floors above it. Beautifully designed and built on the entire parcel. Because I really love the original San Marco Square.

The last thing we need in San Marco is an incredible project. I can’t imagine the construction and don’t get me started on the Traffic! And... Non House owners!?! It would tear the fabric of the community apart. Keep those renters on the other side of the tracks on Phillips. Ahh...reminds me of the good old days when we could protect San Marco...keep those undesirable  elements on the other side of the tracks. Sigh....Those were the days.


Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7843
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #70 on: March 02, 2020, 02:17:58 PM »
I didn't say that! :o

I put forth the idea that with a couple more acres they might be able to do something incredible. Whatever they do now will be way less than what was put forth 15 years ago.  And I don't think anyone expects much more than a Publix..... But I'd love to see a true complement to San Marco Square, a pedestrian friendly retail development with residential on 2 to 4 floors above it. Beautifully designed and built on the entire parcel. Because I really love the original San Marco Square.

The last thing we need in San Marco is an incredible project. I can’t imagine the construction and don’t get me started on the Traffic! And... Non House owners!?! It would tear the fabric of the community apart. Keep those renters on the other side of the tracks on Phillips. Ahh...reminds me of the good old days when we could protect San Marco...keep those undesirable  elements on the other side of the tracks. Sigh....Those were the days.

Ha!
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

sanmarcomatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Donut Enthusiast
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #71 on: May 28, 2020, 11:31:13 AM »
Appeal zoom hearing is scheduled for today and tomorrow. Nothing like trying to fight density being added when small businesses need more help than ever.

Assuming the developers can continue ( I am not optimistic)with the project either way, I am still confused about a potential RSSM win. I thought the original design with the taller parking garage was within the overly, But they just hated it. So if they went back to the original Legal design, we end up with more of a box look....denser....and a taller parking garage next to the awe inspiring “million dollar homes”.  But maybe I am missing something.