St. Johns Village Project Poised To Move Forward?

[dougskiles]

^I agree 100%.  Nice to see the level of respect that was in the room on all sides.

[Noone]

Approved by LUZ 7-0.  Dredging was never really discussed because the boat slips were dropped.  Without the boat slips, the council members must have felt there was no rational connection to that request.  The developer did agree to construct a multi-use path on his side of the right-of-way (basically a wider sidewalk).

Watched the hearing and agree about the level of compromise and the amount of time and effort by The developer and all groups for a compromise. Doug the  wider sidewalk and your work with FDOT was one concern that you addressed was so professional and the responses and suggestions back from councilmembers Boyer, Bishop and Redman were very positive.

Councilman Holt and his observations on the amount of work and time by all involved citizens and neighborhood groups for this project to move forward in Dist. 14 that would be nice if that type of participation could happen in Dist. 11.

I like councilman Lumb and his desire to get to know the issue left me with wondering if his second gig is his desire to be a traffic engineer or cab driver. He was very engaged. Robin- Super props- hope your laughing

Councilman Love gets super props in my book and I'm not just talking about when he was the Chair of Waterways. There is no doubt that there was a lot of work that went into this process and it was reflected when you watched this hearing.

As for the Waterways component it is understandable about abandoning the dredging if the marina is out. As for the kayak launch it is also understandable and that was reinforced by councilman Bishop that they don't even have to have a kayak launch. It is a total private development without any taxpayer money. If it happens fine. if it doesn't that is fine too. Field mentions that Stinson is the next closest official kayak launch and it's not my hood so I couldn't even begin to tell you where that is.

What I do know is that in 4 days is the last opportunity to make a suggestion for a FIND project that is our property tax money and that we all need to know that it is being touted that this new DIA will dictate our Public Access and Economic Opportunity in a new 3 mile zone of our river that will run through the heart of our Urban Core. That was pointed out at the full meeting at the 12/18/13 DIA Board meeting.

St. Johns Village Project- Forward

[Overstreet]

What is the logic behind requiring the development to dredge the creek?

Sounds like a shakedown to me.

Not sure I agree.  The development doesn't meet existing rules, and needs a zoning change.  This could simply be a condition of approval.  As long as it can be rationally tied to the impacts of the development, it would be completely justifiable.

in other words:  A shakedown.  But at least its for a good cause?

They originally were installing a marina. That would require the creek to be dredged.

[JeffreyS]

What is the logic behind requiring the development to dredge the creek?

Sounds like a shakedown to me.

Not sure I agree.  The development doesn't meet existing rules, and needs a zoning change.  This could simply be a condition of approval.  As long as it can be rationally tied to the impacts of the development, it would be completely justifiable.

in other words:  A shakedown.  But at least its for a good cause?

They originally were installing a marina. That would require the creek to be dredged.

Exactly, it was one of the things that made me want to support the project.  If the city ever does dredge the creek I bet they put in the marina sans having to contribute to the improvement of their investment.

[icarus]

Exactly, it was one of the things that made me want to support the project.  If the city ever does dredge the creek I bet they put in the marina sans having to contribute to the improvement of their investment.

Two points: (1) if they later want to install a marina, the City can assess a contribution related to the impact of the installation .. similar to what was proposed with the dredging discussed. (2) your same argument could be applied to any landowner adjacent to a park, riverfront, riverwalk, etc. and while improvements certainly inure to the benefit of those owners in term of perceived value, a great many owners don't want them and don't want the public in their backyard ... so should they have to pay regardless?

[tufsu1]

Approved by LUZ 7-0.  Dredging was never really discussed because the boat slips were dropped.  Without the boat slips, the council members must have felt there was no rational connection to that request.  The developer did agree to construct a multi-use path on his side of the right-of-way (basically a wider sidewalk).

now that makes sense...but yes folks, a marina could easily be tied to dredging.

[JeffreyS]

Exactly, it was one of the things that made me want to support the project.  If the city ever does dredge the creek I bet they put in the marina sans having to contribute to the improvement of their investment.

Two points: (1) if they later want to install a marina, the City can assess a contribution related to the impact of the installation .. similar to what was proposed with the dredging discussed. (2) your same argument could be applied to any landowner adjacent to a park, riverfront, riverwalk, etc. and while improvements certainly inure to the benefit of those owners in term of perceived value, a great many owners don't want them and don't want the public in their backyard ... so should they have to pay regardless?

The developer made the original proposal, apparently they like the idea of the creek being dredged and having a Marina so even at worst they won't being having to contribute to something they don't want.

I am still supportive of the project as it stands now. I guess there could be an assessment if the dredging ever goes forward but somehow I don't think it will happen if it is not at the time the developer wants his development approved.

Even with out the contribution I hope the dredging moves forward and leads to the small marina.

[Know Growth]

What is the logic behind requiring the development to dredge the creek?

Sounds like a shakedown to me.

No logic to it in the past, and a giant self induced trip-up recently.

During past PUD process , creek 'Dredge' vision injected notable relaxed stance among some Woodmere residents. Some have referred to "bribe". Yep,that was easy.

And now,way too late in the current Wack-A-Mole,months after this writer (and certain much better placed others) conferred with the applicant, warnings and observations regards overall comprehensive Fishweir Creek Restoration,possible Jacksonville Marine Association opposition to "Marina" ( go figure-that's a bunch of forum news and info threads never posted....),late in this Sordid game came,as officially lodged by developer ("Applicant") with COJ, reference to docks and Density credit,Comp Plan references......"Working" Waterfront.And in the same document,the Applicant then states that the referenced interjected density credit will not be applied. Nice folks! A bit presumptive- the dock image no more viable than the dribble (never 'expected' to be agreed to) than the dribble we were faced with during three public visits at Kent Campus.

[Know Growth]

At least that horrid looking highrise will fall to the dustheap of history.

And built largely on public lands-"Waters Of the State". As more clearly defined later on, after this 60's era development (Commander apartments-Commander individuals-by name,present era influence).

Fast forward to 2014- cheers for demolition by some.That stupid parking lot projecting out in to the waterway flow way....The entire two parcels were envisioned as Overlay public park.
Density and infill advocates can cheer- High Density expanded.from 99 to 234. "Infill" contributions quickly forgotten,likely never comitted,vested.Who here is really watching?

[Know Growth]

^I agree 100%.  Nice to see the level of respect that was in the room on all sides.

You suggest and pine for a rather vapid process.

The three visits with the public at Kent Campus helped level the friendly playing field,in favor of "The Public".
(I boycotted the third meeting, proven wac-a mole echo chamber.The Kent meetings were of no legal/standing consequence.

Why are folks in the south so friendly?Everyone is armed!

And so goes the residents of Avondale. In addition to RAP, any possible miss-fire backed up by recently formed LLC,"Standing" and $$$$ fortress, possibility of viable Appeal action.
Such features command respect,decorum.
And a COJ averse to knock down drag out legal action.

The Applicants' request is simply that- a request placed before the citizen's government. The only "Rights" the Applicant enjoys are the rights previously vested- in this case,considerable per two back to back PUD.

Anything else is,well,more.A request, placed before the citizen's government.

And not all out of the question.
Citizen,RAP & neighborhood negotiation is not outright opposition.
All,including this writer are looking forward to a revision,transformation of the two parcels.

The antics of the Applicants could afford much easier hard line opposition later.
(note to Intuition Ale- hint to Intuition,approach. Might the Applicant's attorney be 'done', a natural turn of events,stemming all the way back through Mellow Mushroom and,what was that other thang'........oh,yea! Freedom Commerce Centre.
Just say "Know".

(I see earlier MJ Village threads went quiet while news and information events flowed......)

[Know Growth]

What is the logic behind requiring the development to dredge the creek?

Sounds like a shakedown to me.

No logic to it in the past, and a giant self induced trip-up recently.

During past PUD process , creek 'Dredge' vision injected notable relaxed stance among some Woodmere residents. Some have referred to "bribe". Yep,that was easy.

And now,way too late in the current Wack-A-Mole,months after this writer (and certain much better placed others) conferred with the applicant, warnings and observations regards overall comprehensive Fishweir Creek Restoration,possible Jacksonville Marine Association opposition to "Marina" ( go figure-that's a bunch of forum news and info threads never posted....),late in this Sordid game came,as officially lodged by developer ("Applicant") with COJ, reference to docks and Density credit,Comp Plan references......"Working" Waterfront.And in the same document,the Applicant then states that the referenced interjected density credit will not be applied. Nice folks! A bit presumptive- the dock image no more viable than the dribble (never 'expected' to be agreed to) than the dribble we were faced with during three public visits at Kent Campus.

"Fine Print" series....

[Barnaby808]

meh.....can't see the design too good, but looks boring like something we would see in Gate PKWY. The architecture should either be unique or at least follow the theme of the surrounding architecture.

[I-10east]

^^^I can't say that I'm wild about that either.

[pwl32205]

I was looking at the Commander yesterday and noticed there are several cell service antennas mounted to the roof of the building. Has there been any discussion about the potential impact to cell service the demolition of the building may cause?

[fieldafm]

meh.....can't see the design too good, but looks boring like something we would see in Gate PKWY. The architecture should either be unique or at least follow the theme of the surrounding architecture.

I think the style of the proposed buildings corresponds to a beautful house a block away on Glendae and Oak pretty well actually.