The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Urban Neighborhoods => San Marco => Topic started by: Tacachale on January 21, 2020, 10:35:42 AM

Title: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 21, 2020, 10:35:42 AM
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Park-Place-San-Marco/i-N6XhtKq/0/61dc7599/L/Park%20Place%20color-L.jpg)

Quote
Following pushback from some in the neighborhood, the developers behind San Marco's planned Park Place apartment complex have tweaked their plans.

https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/changed-plans-for-park-place-at-san-marco/
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on January 21, 2020, 11:48:12 AM
I love that working with RSSM has resulted in a taller building with larger set backs.  Keep going until it's a 20 foot by 20 foot spire reaching 1,000 feet into the air.  It will be a global monument to their nimby-ism.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: vicupstate on January 21, 2020, 12:17:10 PM
I love that working with RSSM has resulted in a taller building with larger set backs.  Keep going until it's a 20 foot by 20 foot spire reaching 1,000 feet into the air.  It will be a global monument to their nimby-ism.

Heights Unknown likes that idea.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 21, 2020, 01:01:58 PM
I love that working with RSSM has resulted in a taller building with larger set backs.  Keep going until it's a 20 foot by 20 foot spire reaching 1,000 feet into the air.  It will be a global monument to their nimby-ism.

Yeah, it's quite the thing. To be fair, they apparently aren't happy with the current plans either.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: acme54321 on January 21, 2020, 01:36:45 PM
Very interested to see what the architectural changes are...
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jcjohnpaint on January 21, 2020, 05:15:17 PM
Them move to Ponte Vedra! 
So, the apartments against the garage are gone? 
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 21, 2020, 05:21:01 PM
SMPS is allegedly deciding tonight on whether to support the project or not.

Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on January 21, 2020, 08:19:09 PM
Time to email all City Council Members again. All Jaxson's show your support. If not, I don't have a good feeling about this.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 22, 2020, 02:06:54 PM
SMPS came out against most of it.

In other news, water continues to be wet.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on January 22, 2020, 03:35:56 PM
The original design was less than 35 feet tall, they try and accommodate the hypocrites at alt-Right Size San Marco, which results in a height increase to 45 feet, now they are getting scolded for going above 35 feet....??  These guys just can't win.  I think everything about the previous site plan was better, but I just want this built.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Kerry on January 22, 2020, 03:50:32 PM
Alt-Right in San Marco?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 22, 2020, 04:03:06 PM
The original design was less than 35 feet tall, they try and accommodate the hypocrites at alt-Right Size San Marco, which results in a height increase to 45 feet, now they are getting scolded for going above 35 feet....??  These guys just can't win.  I think everything about the previous site plan was better, but I just want this built.

Agreed. About the only thing that may please these groups is 4 new McMansions with a plaque commemorating how great San Marco is surrounded by the 77th green space/passive park that no one uses.

Personally I would resubmit the original design with the only deviation being a giant phallic water feature on the garage fronting Mitchell.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 22, 2020, 04:20:01 PM
San Marco Preservation Society has come out against the latest PUD application.

http://smpsjax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SMPS-Written-Statement-re.-2019-0750-and-2019-0751.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2qu-G1vs2sVLDQbDviiyX5g47inv_Tlp89HYAmsh_j-5CNxWlGKG34Bl4
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: simms3 on January 22, 2020, 08:24:36 PM
On a wide scale, this is the exact attitude that eventually results in $4,000 studio rents and a wide-sweeping homelessness crisis.  Just saying...it HAS happened to other cities and could happen here at some point in our distant future.

At some point, and while we still can, we should ask these opposition groups to draw up the plans and designs the DO want.  What is it that they DO want?  Can they hire an architect and engineer and pull permits and eventually hire a contractor and manage the construction and then lease-up of what they DO want?

I am not part of the conversation, so it could be that these opposition groups are working quite well hand in hand with Corner Lot, and maybe it is emotionally easy to arrive at a joint conclusion on what gets built.  My experience tells me that the personalities involved in opposition groups are quite difficult to handle and BECAUSE we aren't quite San Francisco yet in our NIMBYism, there should be pragmatism but also practicality.

Many precedents will be set by what happens with this development.  Let's not let any of them be bad precedents.

And by bad precedents - for anyone following the squatting Oakland moms...they DID end up getting the house!  Now that is an example of a BAD precedent.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/21/mothers-who-occupied-vacant-oakland-house-will-be-allowed-to-buy-it

(for background beyond what was stated in the above article, these moms took over this house with their children, shortly after it was bought out of foreclosure, and the company that bought the house actually offered to pay to relocate all of the moms/children and cover a period of rent somewhere, and these moms said HELL NO BITCH and continued squatting and drumming up a huge politically motivated PR campaign for their cause until there was so much bad press on the owner of the house that they were essentially forced to sell to a non-profit at appraised value...

the backlash against the movement is simple - it entirely erodes private property rights and sets incredibly bad precedent.  The way to solve homelessness and the issues that cause it is not to take property forcefully the way they did.)
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Transman on January 23, 2020, 09:03:55 AM
It is sad that a very small local group can hold up a good development. 

Basically, this is all about a few homes on one street and one person who just completed a new home opposite the development.  His home and the others have driveways and garages on the adjacent street where the apartments are going to be built.  There was nothing wrong with the original plan.  Now that San Marco Preservation Society has jumped on the bandwagon, we now have a bunch of people who really don't know anything and have no risk, trying to call the shots.

This is really bad for San Marco and Jacksonville.  There are a lot of places to build apartments and other developments than Jacksonville.  If I was a developer why would I want to mess around in the area with this type of grief?  There is a lot of developable land in the San Marco area, the word will get around and firms may not want to invest in the area, not good.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on January 23, 2020, 09:58:21 AM
It is sad that a very small local group can hold up a good development. 

Basically, this is all about a few homes on one street and one person who just completed a new home opposite the development. 

Word on the street is the person who completed the new home had to get a zoning variance to do so... Now he's quoting zoning and the overlay to prevent someone from completing a project that makes more sense for the area than his McMansion fronting a major arterial roadway.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 23, 2020, 10:01:49 AM
It is sad that a very small local group can hold up a good development. 

Basically, this is all about a few homes on one street and one person who just completed a new home opposite the development.  His home and the others have driveways and garages on the adjacent street where the apartments are going to be built.  There was nothing wrong with the original plan.  Now that San Marco Preservation Society has jumped on the bandwagon, we now have a bunch of people who really don't know anything and have no risk, trying to call the shots.

This is really bad for San Marco and Jacksonville.  There are a lot of places to build apartments and other developments than Jacksonville.  If I was a developer why would I want to mess around in the area with this type of grief?  There is a lot of developable land in the San Marco area, the word will get around and firms may not want to invest in the area, not good.

Sadly this is about a lot more than just a small group here but it reinforces why I personally soured on SMPS awhile ago.And while I appreciate their efforts, it is safe to say we have different visions and priorities.

On a brighter note, most future development will take place in North San Marco and most of this crowd could give a shit about what happens there except maybe more traffic(!) which is apparently end of the world as we know it kind of stuff. Thus, I wouldn’t be overly concerned about future area interest.

However, I do wonder if this changes this particular developer’s thoughts about the former bath house building. That would suck if this debacle delayed or stopped that project entirely.



Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 23, 2020, 03:29:48 PM
FYI, This is being discussed currently in the latest planning commission meeting. Liking what I am hearing so far.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 23, 2020, 03:58:45 PM
After some very good discussion( with some of the comments made by the commissioners actually making me laugh), Unanimous approval.

One small step toward progress. Time to load up on the popcorn in the lead up to council vote.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on January 23, 2020, 05:10:23 PM
 For anyone interested , this is the site for those of us that are in favor of this development. I have been told there will be no yard signs :)

https://www.smartsanmarco.com/


Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: ProjectMaximus on January 27, 2020, 10:35:45 AM
For anyone interested , this is the site for those of us that are in favor of this development. I have been told there will be no yard signs :)

https://www.smartsanmarco.com/

Great website! Who is this Morgan person, why are they so smart, and why isn't their name Matt?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 27, 2020, 12:10:09 PM
For anyone interested , this is the site for those of us that are in favor of this development. I have been told there will be no yard signs :)

https://www.smartsanmarco.com/

Great website! Who is this Morgan person, why are they so smart, and why isn't their name Matt?

I’ve been in touch with her. I plan to talk to both sides for a future article.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: acme54321 on February 06, 2020, 07:38:36 AM
Anyone go to the town hall they had last night?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 06, 2020, 10:44:38 AM
I did not. I've talked to some of the various sides of this, and may be doing another article in the future. In my opinion, Right Size San Marco has a pretty strong legal argument for their perspective, based on what the city land use and zoning says. The developers and supporters have a good argument as far as what the development would bring to the neighborhood and local businesses, but I'm not sure what their legal argument is. At any rate, It's going to be a matter of the interpretation that City Council finds most persuasive.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 06, 2020, 08:18:54 PM
This is what I sent to all CC menbers about this is. I encourage others to do the same. Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments. My biggest concern is a future of NO development and empty pocket parks.

I am writing to support the development of Park Place at San Marco apartments. Review of the plans and comments by the developer and his staff gives the following reasons for this support:

1.   This is a Right Sized development. The building size and unit make-up will not lead to increased traffic or overloading of public services in the area.
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.
3.   This building fits the San Marco area with good choice of architectural details.
4.   The building fits the scale of the area as rooflines will be similar to the new Publix and the existing church.
5.   This development will not lower property values in the area.

I believe some area residents just don’t want apartments in the San Marco area.

I believe that the City Council must listen to all voices and then make a decision which is best for the neighborhood, the community at large and Jacksonville. Only a few vocal people should not dictate the situation. If we turn down development that is done well just because we don’t want density, then we will end up with NO development. We will have more abandoned buildings and empty lots turned parking.

I live in North County and have 2 new subdivisions going in with over 200 homes within a .25 mile of my home. I encourage this development as long as it done correctly. It will help raise property values and bring new services both public and private.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: acme54321 on February 07, 2020, 08:28:06 AM
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.

I don't believe this is still part of the proposal.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 07, 2020, 10:22:27 AM
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.

I don't believe this is still part of the proposal.

It isn’t.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 07, 2020, 06:03:42 PM
My second email to CC members had that removed and asked why would someone want to look at a garage and not what looks like a house. Not sure I get it?

But if that was what was requested, the developers obliged them.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 07, 2020, 07:21:46 PM
My second email to CC members had that removed and asked why would someone want to look at a garage and not what looks like a house. Not sure I get it?

But if that was what was requested, the developers obliged them.

Well, they want the whole development shorter as per the overlay. The developers dropped the height on the garage side and the only way to do that without loosing parking spots was to replace those units with more parking.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on February 07, 2020, 11:41:17 PM
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: JPalmer on February 08, 2020, 09:35:47 PM
Honestly, considering the fact that Andy Allen was clearly part of the JEA con-job.  I’m not certain I would be mad to see this and every one of Corner Lot’s deals to fall through. 
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 09, 2020, 08:52:26 PM
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.

Then we will have a church building in very bad disrepair or a lot empty for 10-20 years(see Publix lot). The church owns property. They have property rights as all of us do. Maybe they should go back to a commercial development. Not sure I would consider this church property historic.




also
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 08:18:23 AM
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use, and then they could have built something within the existing guidelines on the backside, allowing for a nice complex that worked for everyone.   Once you start trying to make the most possible money out of the situation (like a developer),  then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries, which it seems to me, has put us in this predicament.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 10, 2020, 09:01:05 AM
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use, and then they could have built something within the existing guidelines on the backside, allowing for a nice complex that worked for everyone.   Once you start trying to make the most possible money out of the situation (like a developer),  then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries, which it seems to me, has put us in this predicament.

Delores Weaver lost tons of money on John Gorrie and the only reason that development happened is because she's a billionaire who didn't care about financial returns, but wanted to complete the project as a gift to the neighborhood.  The developers may not only care about money, but they do need to make money on this project.  Comparing this to John Gorrie is inaccurate and that project probably screwed up things for local developers because the uninformed think ta similar product is financially feasible for anyone.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 09:52:12 AM
Let me help you Captain.

"I love what the Weavers's did with John Gorrie"..... They used the existing structure to make their units.

"I wish the church elders had thought about that before going into a contract"...... It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed.  Were any other proposals looked at?

The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool. 
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: fieldafm on February 10, 2020, 10:21:01 AM
Quote
then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries

They could have just torn down all the buildings and built a strip mall within the confines of the existing zoning code. Perhaps the existing zoning code doesn't adequately reflect the realities of today.

Quote
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use

Comparing the John Gorrie to the hodgepodge of buildings on this site is apples to oranges. Gorrie has much more square feet in its existing footprint, has parking on site (btw, it needed a parking variance), is much more interesting architecturally... and was a passion project that did not make money for the developer. 

BTW, its now 15 years later and the Gorrie retail pad sites are still not developed.

Quote
It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed. 

The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?

Quote
The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool.

Another apples to grapefruit comparison... but clearly you've never penciled out either kind of development, so its understandable that the context escapes you.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 10:30:37 AM
 "
The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?"

Wow, hard to explain all the pushback.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 10, 2020, 01:26:53 PM
Quote
then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries

They could have just torn down all the buildings and built a strip mall within the confines of the existing zoning code. Perhaps the existing zoning code doesn't adequately reflect the realities of today.

Quote
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use

Comparing the John Gorrie to the hodgepodge of buildings on this site is apples to oranges. Gorrie has much more square feet in its existing footprint, has parking on site (btw, it needed a parking variance), is much more interesting architecturally... and was a passion project that did not make money for the developer. 

BTW, its now 15 years later and the Gorrie retail pad sites are still not developed.

Quote
It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed. 

The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?

Quote
The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool.

Another apples to grapefruit comparison... but clearly you've never penciled out either kind of development, so its understandable that the context escapes you.

+1000 . Present zoning allows a strip mall. Go for it. But the developers want better for San Marco. The existing buildings are disjointed, don't really fit San Marco today and are not historic.

I really believe this is another case of a small group of residents who disdain the idea of apartments so close to their homes.

CC needs to evaluate if this zoning change is better for the neighborhood, San Marco and the City of Jax, as compared to a potential strip mall. The church, one way or another, is going to sell the property.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 04:14:55 PM
I think they (Right Size San Marco) have made it clear, they understand something will be built. They just want it to fit in the neighborhood.
That desire seems pretty reasonable to me, even if the developer gets everything they want. 

Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: bl8jaxnative on February 11, 2020, 11:38:04 AM
Strip malls ==> the only things that scare urbanistas more than a cul-de-sac with out a sidewalk.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on February 15, 2020, 02:28:07 PM
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.

The article below adds to my comments above about where is the line drawn on rezoning exceptions and how one change can set precedent for the whole city, as developers cry "Me too!"  This is just another reason why residents need to be vigilant, pay attention to other zoning battles in the City and resist rampant exceptions to carefully thought out zoning restrictions and long term overlay plans.   What good are zoning and overlays if they are not enforced?

Quote
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200214/san-marco-zoning-height-dispute-raising-questions-elsewhere

(Emphasis added)
Quote
Apartments proposed for San Marco church property might be shorter than a shopping center planned across the street, but a zoning debate surrounding them could cast a shadow on neighborhoods across Jacksonville.

People outside the area have stayed quiet so far about Park Place at San Marco, a four-story apartment building and garage that developers hope to build on land now housing part of the landmark South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church.

But questions about a calculation used to define the project’s height – letting a 49.5-foot-tall building meet a 35-foot height limit in that neighborhood – have drawn attention from people wondering about ripple effects in the rest of the city.

“It’s not something we’ve seen used before,” said Warren Jones, executive director of Riverside Avondale Preservation, the neighborhood group for the historic district on the opposite side of the St. Johns River.

“We wonder if, since we in the district use the term ‘maximum height,’ would this be used here,” Jones said. “And if so, what would the effect be on height calculations for us?”....
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on February 17, 2020, 02:21:10 PM
San Marco height fight on steroids in the Big Apple!

How about this story from New York about a developer that pushed the building department to stretch zoning rules for height limits?  It now may cost them the removal of up to 20 floors already built!  Lessons for Jacksonville?

Quote
New York skyscraper must remove top 20 floors, judge rules

Fifty-two story block built far too high by taking advantage of zoning loophole

In an extraordinary ruling, a state supreme court judge has ordered the developers of a nearly completed 668-foot block of flats in New York to remove as many as 20 or more floors from the top of the building.

The decision is a major victory for community groups who opposed the project on the grounds that the developers used a zoning loophole to create the tallest building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. A lawyer representing the project said the developers would appeal the decision.

Justice W Franc Perry ordered that the Department of Buildings revoke the building permit for the tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue and remove all floors that exceed the zoning limit. Exactly how many floors might need to be deconstructed has yet to be determined, but under one interpretation of the law, the building might have to remove 20 floors or more from the 52-storey tower to conform to the regulation.

“We’re elated,” said Olive Freud, the president of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development, one of the community groups that brought the suit.

“The developers knew that they were building at their own peril,” said Richard Emery, a lawyer representing the community groups that challenged the project before the foundation was even completed. Mr Emery said this decision sent a warning to other developers who proceed with construction despite pending litigation.

The question at the heart of the suit was whether the developers had abused zoning rules to justify the project’s size.

It is common for developers to purchase the unused development rights of adjacent buildings to add height and bulk to their project. But in this case opponents of the project argued that the developers, SJP Properties and Mitsui Fudosan America, created a “gerrymandered”, highly unusual 39-sided zoning lot to take advantage of the development rights from a number of tenuously connected lots. Without this technique, the tower might have been little more than 20 storeys tall, instead of the nearly finished 52-storey tower that now stands.

The decision also sets an important precedent, said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the Municipal Art Society of New York, one of the advocacy groups that brought the suit against the project.

“The way this zoning lot was constructed has been invalidated, and that is extremely important,” Ms Goldstein said, adding that the decision would deter other developers from attempting similar strategies.

Scott Mollen, a lawyer with the firm Herrick Feinstein, which is representing the project, said the ruling contradicted earlier decisions from the Department of Buildings and the Board of Standards and Appeals that were based on a long-established zoning interpretation. SJP, one of the developers, said they would “appeal this decision vigorously”.

What comes next is unclear. While further litigation would effectively postpone any disassembly of the tower, sales at the luxury block would also be held up. Marketing is well underway for the 112 luxury apartments, and the most lucrative units are on the top floors — including a $21m (£16m) penthouse, which would likely be removed if the decision stands.

The New York Times
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 19, 2020, 10:11:08 AM
Big land use meeting tonight at 5 with this project up for vote. Actually, this has turned into a battle for Jacksonville’s future. Adding a story to this project could be a threat to Jacksonville as we know it!
Uh, yeah.
For those that support this development, please email chair Danny Becton DBecton@coj.net  and let him know why. If you can make the meeting, all the better.



Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: edjax on February 20, 2020, 09:59:07 AM
How did the meeting go last night?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 20, 2020, 10:01:27 AM
Good news. Unanimous approval. Big step forward. Next is full council vote which should be just a formality and then an appeal. We are getting there.

Due to some unfortunate circumstances, I have been “out of the fight” recently and couldn’t attend the meeting last night. However, it was still going on (this project went close to 5 hours I think) when I got in last night, I was able to watch the end of the public comments and then council questions/discussion. Here is my recap:

Biggest surprise was that feedback for and against was pretty close. I certainly think the majority are either in favor or indifferent but pleasantly surprised that they were as vocal as the opposed.

First, and I will need to watch the video so I can see the name, I was highly impressed with one speaker who touched upon a variety of subjects like density,economic impact,ridiculous driving habits of his neighbors and even  architecture in his 3 minutes and wanted to give him a standing ovation.
I also was very pleased that I got to see yet another lovely performance from the Fuhrer/leader( not sure if there are assigned titles so just spitballing) of RSSM. At some point, someone in his inner circle needs to have the bravery to tell this guy that his arrogance and superiority is so bad he is hurting his own cause every time he speaks. I can’t imagine what the council members think.He even spoke as if he had such amazing power that “He” was willing to give the developers 114 units .This happens to be what is allowed under current zoning so a little surprised the developers don’t just bow down, kiss his feet, and call it a day. The fear and misleading information he uses is pretty much common place so no big deal but wow does he come across bad.

Sadly, as the opposition argument wasn’t particularly strong, disrespectful comments  were directed toward the developers and apparently some speakers knew a lot more than the Planning Commission. Well, in their own mind I guess.

After the hours (!) of public comments, the discussion piece was actually pretty good. Well, it was during the breaks between speeches by Matt Carlucci. Woah. He is not part of the committee but dominated most of the time. 10 % points and 90% rambling/waxing poetically and “ educating” . I appreciate his passion but I do not think he endeared himself to his counterparts.

Cumber, our district rep,though a small sample size, was highly impressive speaking to issues for both sides. She was thoughtful and on point, and used her words efficiently and effectively unlike Mr War and Peace. When she pointed out that the fabled San Marco Overlay ( FYI, these are scrolls that are much revered like a religious artifact and must be unrolled By San Marco Elders. First generation residents are only allowed to lick the dust off the wooden handles but there is a waiting list as it is a prestigious honor) had recently been amended and was a living document, I chuckled.

Becton and Boylan also acquitted themselves well with good points about different perspectives. Gaffney and Dennis seemed genuinely interested and were most concerned about possible precedent. I think Pittman was awake. Not quite sure.

Finally a big shout out to Morgan Starks who organized people who were in favor of the development. She is a big reason why the opinions were so close despite getting such a late start compared to RSSM. She has done an amazing job and in a respectful manner.
 
And, as always, what gratitude we owe Doug Skiles.  He has been such an asset to San Marco and certainly to this project. The amount of time and effort he has put in to work with the residents is truly admirable. As is how he handles himself. I remember when I first heard about this project and was so happy he was involved. At this point, happy doesn’t cover it.

Still a ways to go, but let’s hope this momentum continues.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 20, 2020, 11:05:22 AM
I too would love to see the Fuhrer's comments, so do you have a link where I could indoctrinate myself with his wise teachings?  I have been singing his praises far and wide to the masses.  He masterfully is opposing a zoning change when he himself received a zoning change for his architectural masterpiece fronting Hendricks avenue.  Truly a strategic mastermind at work.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 20, 2020, 11:14:50 AM
I too would love to see the Fuhrer's comments, so do you have a link where I could indoctrinate myself with his wise teachings?  I have been singing his praises far and wide to the masses.  He masterfully is opposing a zoning change when he himself received a zoning change for his architectural masterpiece fronting Hendricks avenue.  Truly a strategic mastermind at work.

Doesn’t look like video is available yet (probably too long!) but will be here:

https://www.coj.net/city-council/city-council-meetings-online.aspx

I am guessing this will be about 6 1/2 hours....I think public comments ended at about the 5 hour mark, so probably best to start around there and work backwards. Power Trip was reasonably close to the end.

On a side note, had no idea these meetings were on cable Channel 99.Always streamed them previously. As brilliant as I think I am, sometimes I am pretty stupid. But I do try to learn from my countless mistakes, so I have that going for me.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 25, 2020, 09:39:35 PM
Landslide victory for the project as expected. Carlucci the only no vote. He didn’t disappoint with his usual droning on about his history. I was expecting a story about staring down Corn Pop at the fountain of lions.

Next up....appeal of course. (waste of everyone’s time).
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 27, 2020, 01:40:54 PM
Anybody going to the Smart San Marco event tonight?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Papa33 on February 27, 2020, 02:21:50 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 27, 2020, 05:33:31 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 27, 2020, 08:35:37 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.



Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 27, 2020, 08:41:02 PM
Anybody going to the Smart San Marco event tonight?

I wanted to go and do some damage on the 133 but unfortunately I have been pretty chained up lately. Hoping for some freedom soon, though.

Did you go?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 28, 2020, 09:32:45 AM
Did you go?

I did.  I am sure they burned through the 133 drinks, as there were always about 40-50 people in the room despite people coming and going throughout the evening.  Spirits were high as everyone was celebrating logic and reason triumphing over NIMBYism.  Some of the G&G regulars became community activists to get in on the free drinks.  I suspect their activism has since faded.

Scott Wilson and Leanna Cumber came through, so I guess they are with the good guys on this one.  I spoke with some of the guys on the project and it sounds like you're right that RSSM is even nastier in person.  Corner Lot offered to do more to accommodate RSSM, but were met with something to the effect of "don't bother, we're going to get this project shut down anyway".
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 28, 2020, 09:51:25 AM

 I spoke with some of the guys on the project and it sounds like you're right that RSSM is even nastier in person.  Corner Lot offered to do more to accommodate RSSM, but were met with something to the effect of "don't bother, we're going to get this project shut down anyway".

Sadly, they became worse as the realization had set in that they were “ not going to get their way “. I expect they are not accustomed to that feeling. I just hope their lawyer cranks up the billable hours for however long this process takes.

I hope you got a chance to watch the council meeting clip I referenced in the PM I sent.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 28, 2020, 09:54:57 AM

I hope you got a chance to watch the council meeting clip I referenced in the PM I sent.

Please share!
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 28, 2020, 10:14:01 AM
I get about 2 PMs a year, so I rarely check, but I just watched about 15 minutes of the comments.  The condescension by all toward the council and the veiled threats by the Fuhrer at the end of his comments are gold!   
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2020, 10:50:00 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2020, 10:54:52 AM

 I spoke with some of the guys on the project and it sounds like you're right that RSSM is even nastier in person.  Corner Lot offered to do more to accommodate RSSM, but were met with something to the effect of "don't bother, we're going to get this project shut down anyway".

Sadly, they became worse as the realization had set in that they were “ not going to get their way “. I expect they are not accustomed to that feeling. I just hope their lawyer cranks up the billable hours for however long this process takes.

I hope you got a chance to watch the council meeting clip I referenced in the PM I sent.

This is not surprising at all and in 6 years on RAP we dealt with this a TON of times. You have a developer that wanted to do something that would not comply with the overlay, you had a group of neighbors which would fight it either way, and you had RAP that was trying to keep everyone happy. It isn't a easy job and more often than not, RAP was portrayed as the bad guy.

This is one area where I think SMPS didn't do a great job controlling the conversation. The two names you heard the most was Corner Lot and RSSM. I'm not saying SMPS' role here was easy, but it's never easy. I feel like I'm in the know but I STILL don't know what exactly SMPS' complaints were (I knew they were against it but what were the specific reasons), and what was their counter proposal. That's an issue.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 28, 2020, 11:10:43 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 :)




Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: fieldafm 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:

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/East-San-Marco/i-5gvZjqj/0/32018bab/L/ESM-2006-L.jpg)

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.


Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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.

Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve 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:

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/East-San-Marco/i-5gvZjqj/0/32018bab/L/ESM-2006-L.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan 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?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan 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.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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.

Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale 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!
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: sanmarcomatt 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.